 | | Re: Parts 64699 and 64225
|
|
(...) That's the 4x4 version. I'm looking for (need) the 4x3 version. (13 years ago, 12-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts 64699 and 64225
|
|
(...) In LDraw 64225 I think the part #47753. The other has not been made I guess. (13 years ago, 11-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Request (92906)
|
|
(...) That sounds fine Philo; enjoy your holiday. It will probably take me at least another week or two to finish the whole model anyway, so I'll put in a placeholder part and replace it with 92906 when it shows up on the Parts Tracker. You can see (...) (13 years ago, 10-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Request (92906)
|
|
(...) I intended to work on it soon, but I'm on holidays presently, so it may have to wait a few weeks. If someone else want to work on it, no problem! Philo (13 years ago, 10-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Parts 64699 and 64225
|
|
I'm a little frustrated since I can't find the .dat file for <link>(URL) Peeron has a virtual image not a photo, so I know there's a file for it, but it's not in the official parts nor on the parts tracker. Where the heck is it?!?! :-) The other (...) (13 years ago, 10-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Part Request (92906)
|
|
I modelling one of (URL) Crowkillers'> latest (URL) MOCs> and I find myself lacking a new part. I checked the Parts Tracker but I can't find any sign of it. I'm looking for the new (URL) Joint Axle> (part 92906). Seems simple enough, but I'm not (...) (13 years ago, 9-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | 4180d.dat (was: LDraw.org 2011-01 Parts Update Now Available) [DAT]
|
|
(...) Great work! Just one little problem, can't see that anybody else has signaled for: Part 4180d.dat 0 ~Moved to x996 0 Name: 4180d.dat - - - (snip) - - - 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 996.dat It says Moved to x996, but points to 996.dat without (...) (13 years ago, 8-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2011-01 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) --snip-- Sorry about raising your hackles. This one was meant to be a jokey tone but rereading it I see it's not so much. Particularly since I tend to take a strong tone in my arguments in general. Tim (13 years ago, 7-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2011-01 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) Yeah, sorry, I'm already registered at the new forum. My reaction was mainly against Tim's tone - as if 'modern' is the only working way. For some reason he raises my hackles quite often... I'm well used to web forums, but I still prefer NNTP (...) (13 years ago, 7-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2011-01 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) Here's the deal: When I created the new forum and announced the change, I knew there would be some people who didn't like it. Change is hard, I acknowledge that. But we were driving away new blood for the sake of the old hats. Yes I like NNTP (...) (13 years ago, 7-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2011-01 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) I do share your frustration, but if the new, slower and much more inefficient way to navigate through the forum threads really will attract new users, I will not stand in its way. I'll give it some time and hope for improvements that will (...) (13 years ago, 7-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2011-01 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) Personally I have no problem with NNTP and would happily stick with it. Unfortunately most of the internet will not. So our choices (as I see them) are as follows: 1) Stick with LUGNET with NNTP but suffer a lack of new users who either can't (...) (13 years ago, 6-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2011-01 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) NNTP is simply a more efficient protocol than HTTP for forums. I can't see the point in wasting time on web interfaces to forums, when NNTP is so much more efficient - and allows me to pick a user interface I like. Play well, Jacob (13 years ago, 6-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2011-01 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) Yes, why stay with obsolete methods that are 300-3000% more efficient for reading text messages, why stay with 'one click reads everything' when we can use the much more modern 'upmty-eleven clicks may find everything but you will probably (...) (13 years ago, 6-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2011-01 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
I have a question about this latest parts update. Many of the new parts have file names longer than 8 characters, and none of them will load into MLCad. They just throw up "file not found" errors. (This is MLCad 3.30.) Is there something I need to (...) (13 years ago, 6-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2011-01 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) I'm afraid we are prioritising new users over those from the 1980s. What with it being 2011 and all it seemed the right time ;) Tim (13 years ago, 6-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2011-01 Parts Update Now Available
|
|
(...) What is the name of the NNTP server for the forums? Play well, Jacob (13 years ago, 5-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with LDView
|
|
(...) Hi Travis, I'm sorry for the late reply. I have sent a model to your e-mail address. Best regards, Miran Pris (13 years ago, 5-Aug-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with LDView
|
|
(...) It's possible that LDView is running out of memory. Taking a snapshot with a high resolution would take more memory than loading the model in the UI, but the difference shouldn't be huge. 3000 parts is a fair number, but I wouldn't think it (...) (13 years ago, 31-Jul-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with LDView
|
|
(...) Hi Travis, I've tried to open it manually with LDView and that works. It happens with all of my models that have around 3000 parts and 3 layers max (with this I mean model-submodel-subsubmodel). I've taken a look at the activity when I try to (...) (13 years ago, 30-Jul-11, to lugnet.cad)
|
