 | | part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F [DAT]
|
|
here you go 0 Brick 1 x 2 with Arm 2F 0 File: 30014.DAT 0 Author: Jonathan Wilson 0 Un-Official Element 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3004.DAT 1 16 0 12 -10 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ARM1.DAT (25 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dat)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
(...) Is this an attempt to model part #30014? If so, it is incorrect in at least three very obvious ways -- (a) the vertical placement of ARM1.DAT, (b) the use of ARM1.DAT in the first place, and (c) the use of 3004.DAT, where a new element should (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
I agree with that, Todd. Scott Sanburn (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
(...) side of (...) I do agree as well, Todd. Thanks again for taking this situation and calming it down and thanks for your patience in the matter. Keep Building!! -Tim <>< (URL) timcourtne ICQ: 23951114 You've seen their sites and read their (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) to (...) Disagree. It is easier to use the carrot than the stick. When the LCAD moved to LUGNET it was discussed that this would open the group to a wider variety of persons. Now we have the first case of (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
(...) I apologize for this comment. I realize that it was completely uncalled for and terribly degrading and cheap in nature. Jonathan and all; please forgive me for my unnecessary comment. I will work to have my original post cancelled. Keep (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
what do you mean use of arm1.dat? should i have used arm2.dat? (25 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
Jonathan wilson: (...) I mean that you should not have referenced ARM1.DAT in a file purporting to represent part #30014. Granted, ARM1.DAT is the least incorrect of all subparts that you could have referenced, but it is still incorrect. (...) No. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
(...) Agreed. Ditto. What Todd said. I second that. In spades. Jonathan, you have been reading these types of comments for quite a while now. Has _any_ of it sunk in? -- Terry K -- (25 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
i am listening to the group. i will do everything i can to accually get some lego to work from. at the monent i have a bag of lego (not mine) that i am looking at, but all the parts that guy had that were not in ldraw are too hard IMHO to model e.g. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
(...) No, 5LDU is not accurate enough, especially for studs. Regular studs are always spaced *exactly* 20LDU apart. The only exceptions are some very odd, small bits. Depending on the part, studs will either be positioned on the even-number (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
(Repost, to fix a lugnetter ID problem I was having yesterday. :-) (...) (I knew I said that I'd stay out of this, but argh argh argh argh fooey.) I like Jacob's suggestion, for him to volunteer to mentor Johnathan for a month on a trial basis. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
(...) No. I will not ignore them. But I don't look forward to slogging through a bunch of parts finding obvious, glaring errors. Ones that should _NOT_ be there in pieces submitted for voting. And I can only assume that the errors are there because: (...) (25 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
