 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) No, this is definitely not true. LeoCAD is AFAIK at least as powerful as MLCad. BlockCAD is the most limited of the pack, but also the easiest to use. When I google for "lego cad" I get: LDraw LeoCAD techbricks' link page containing links to (...) (15 years ago, 23-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) The ones I typically visit (ClassicSpace.com, CrownVic.net, and etc.) all visually show threads with new responses in another color. Some even show you how many new replies there have been since I last visited. It's easy to see what to click (...) (15 years ago, 22-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Have you ever tried it ??????? Philo (15 years ago, 23-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
(...) Yes, I agree! New generations looks at what I call 'vapor-ware'! The look is the most important think they watch. When I recreate my website, changing the look but not the contents, I got a 10-20% increased access. On the other side, the (...) (15 years ago, 23-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Chat Room?
|
|
(...) Well, at least I'm not against giving it a try. /Tore (15 years ago, 23-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Chat Room?
|
|
(...) Well yes, but it's not open source nor "free software" in the GNU sense. (...) I don't know has it ever died but I myself have seen newbies come and go on #kvirc on freenode. It is around, that's for sure. (...) I checked the freenode policies (...) (15 years ago, 22-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Chat Room?
|
|
(...) As a data point, IRC is used extensively for helping out with WikiMedia Foundation related stuff. A fair bit of the traffic in some IRC channels is bot traffic (some bots posting changes, other bots examining the changes and reverting (...) (15 years ago, 22-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Chat Room?
|
|
(...) It still exists, believe it or not (being actively using it "ever since"). But... my perception is that it's mostly the "same old" users keeping it alive, and a few occasional new ones dropping in. There are 72708 currently active clients on (...) (15 years ago, 22-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | LDraw Chat Room?
|
|
(...) Yes, didn't I? Almost twice as long as your post... ;) (...) Isn't MLCad freeware? I didn't know that. But then again, I'm not an MLCad user. I don't know about a dedicated LDraw chat. Would it really be populated? There's nothing that stops (...) (15 years ago, 22-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote a big lengthy post. Maybe we could have a chat channel for LDraw? I myself would suggest of creating an IRC channel for users to sit, ask help for and just chat in. As LDraw itself is free software (even though (...) (15 years ago, 22-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
