 | | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
| (...) But, whether or not it's meant to compete, it will compete, won't it? Or will it have such a limited parts selection that only kids would want to use it? What about the more complex powerful LEGO building tools mentioned below? Won't those (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | | | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
| In my opinion, what killed the community's enthusiuasm for working with LEGO was LEGO's intention to patent the file format (and complicate it to do so.) Since then, LEGO has obtained a government monopoly on CAD that is so broad, it could even be (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | | | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
| (...) More on this post tomorrow, but a couple of quick answers. By compete, I just meant that our DD software isn't meant to compete with, say MLCad. It is designed for use by kids around the age of 7 or 8. MLCad, I would assume, doesn't really (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | | | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
| (...) I don't know if anyone's done an age study, but that sounds about right. (...) Which end? ;-) (...) Is it mine in the sense that I can legally implement the same method in another file format? (...) Naturally, part of my job at LUGNET is to (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | | | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
| (...) That's raises an interesting moral and ethical dilemma: Is it morally acceptable to support the LXF format? Do you think anyone will boycott it? (...) Aren't millions of copies of USENET articles dating back to 1994-5 documentation enough? (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
| |
