|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
