 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) First, let me make it clear that I am not a supporter of this policy (the fact that I have to write "policy" makes me feel a tad ill, to be honest). I was reporting, not defending. You quoted the most relevant portion of what I wrote. "The (...) (15 years ago, 22-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) How widespread a problem is that, though? I know that some parts do indeed have two numbers, but this would seem a glitch that should have been resolved eight or more years ago, no? I mean, when you can turn a brick over and say "Yep, it's a (...) (15 years ago, 22-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) That's a really good explanation of why the 'rules and regulations' have grown alongside the part library and software. Tim (15 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) I wanted to make sure people weren't turned away from LeoCAD because they might think they'd be dependent on third parties to provide a parts library, that's just not true, so people SHOULD check it out. It's certainly my LCAD tool of choice (...) (15 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Nod. But if the people responsible for LUGNET don't want it to gradually fade away and become even less relevant, changes are needed. Without them, other sections won't return either. I note that there's a facebook discussion group started on (...) (15 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Yes that is correct, but importing the files is not using them directly, as most other LDraw programs do. And for folks that have multiple parts folders, that can make a big difference. ROSCO (15 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) LeoCAD directly imports LDRAW parts. There's no need to wait for an update of its database. It is as simple as downloading from the parts tracker, and then importing into LeoCAD itself. Some folks don't like to manage parts at that level, but (...) (15 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Welcome back. My issue with that is that it's out of the hands of LDraw. It's hard to expect the people responsible for LUGNET to make big changes when it's pretty much just one small section that is active. Tim (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote: --snip-- (...) I think I see a bit better what you were getting at (and what Tore is getting at too which is the same issue I think). I kind of do agree with you both that making new parts is too hard due in part (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Actually, there has been an 'entry tool' around since 1998 - BlockCAD (www.blockcad.net). While it's using part definitions of its own, and has a lot of limitations (studs up only, fixed rotation of parts, no Technic) you can save models in (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Thank you Orion. I've finally found the presentation I made some time ago and if you're interested you can download it here: (URL) in Spanish, but that should not be a problem. Any suggestions/addition...provements are welcome. Jetro (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) There is also LeoCAD, which has some great features MLCad doesn't have. It sufferes from not being able to use the official parts library (directly), but it's database is regularly updated. And as a bonus it's available for Linux too. I'm (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | (Re)activating Lugnet? (Was: The future of LDraw?)
|
|
(...) I must admit that I didn't know that it isn't possible to get a membership on Lugnet anymore. That's not good. (...) Luckily I keep plenty of backups - also of mission-critical cookies. (...) Yes. What will it take to allow people to get (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Hi Dave, Thanks for your thoughtful input. I might be one of the causes of the bureaucracy you are referring to (in follow on posts). When I started to write LDraw tools back in late 1999, I turned to lugnet's LDraw forum to ask for guidance. (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Rumors of my disassembly have been greatly exaggerated. (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) For the Non-CA parts it should be clear that for legal reasons there has to be another author mentioned. That's why it is handled there in this way. For normal parts it is much more difficult. From what point on it is made from the scratch? - (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) I think you are completely right here! I have done some starts in part authoring, but given up on 'the real thing' as there are no easy parts left to do. Of course this makes it much harder for a budding part author. The quality which is (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Holy moley! Do you still exist?!? (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Or perhaps LUGNET just needs some changes... identify the problem areas and fix them. (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote: ***snip*** I'd like to mention at this point that Tore Eriksson is personally responsible for my first forays into apocryphal parts-authoring. I found his small handful of Tyco-based half-height elements, and I (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
