|
|
 | | Re: Who Uses Original LDraw? (Was: ... Rocket Launch Pattern)
|
| (...) Excellent point. However there are a lot of (in some ways incompatible) dialects of C. There ARE reference implementations for things like all the Java components (the javac compiler, the java jvm, the jms messaging, jca, the rmi server, etc (...) (20 years ago, 13-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: Who Uses Original LDraw? (Was: ... Rocket Launch Pattern)
|
| (...) Why have a replacement at all? The file format stands by itself. There's no reference complier for C code, no reference viewer for the PNG format, and no reference CAD program for the DXF format, why should there be one for the LDraw system? (...) (20 years ago, 12-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: Who Uses Original LDraw? (Was: ... Rocket Launch Pattern)
|
| (...) IIRC, the limit was only on the size of the root directory -- but I could well be wrong. I think there are two separate, and related, questions here: Do we want to keep supporting DOS as a platform? Do we want to keep supporting LDraw 0.27? (...) (20 years ago, 12-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Who Uses Original LDraw? (Was: ... Rocket Launch Pattern)
|
| (...) Willy, You really got a good point here. I don't know if there is anyone that still uses original LDraw. And, I don't think the LDraw parts library is LDraw compatible anyway. At least not running under DOS - I think there was a limit of 2000 (...) (20 years ago, 12-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch Pattern – RELOADED
|
| Hi folks, I overhauled the Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch Pattern - 3754p90.dat. (URL) Although this is the re-engineering of an existing LEGO part, it will NOT be submitted to the LDraw Parts Tracker for certification. It would never make it (...) (20 years ago, 12-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
| | | | | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
| (...) I missed responding to this one specific point. In general, aliases amongst the primitives would be a bad thing. They would primarily add more files to an already too-large list of primitives, and would only provide duplicate function. In this (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
| | | | | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
| (...) The consistency is in the basic four fractions: 1-4, 2-4, 3-4, 4-4. The other measures are (more or less) deliberate inconsistencies to name files that don't fit the basic standard. (...) Yes, that would be an incorrect consideration. Part (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
| | | | | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
| (...) It's not really that hard, but my mind recoils at a senseless inconsistency, and this, and the following, are it. Note that I suggested an alias, not move, and certainly not removing the existing names. (...) "0 Circle 1.0". 5-8edge should be (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
| | | | | New parts: Scala Jewlery Rings [DAT]
|
| Scala Jewelery Rings set 4306 contained three different sized rings. Unfortunately I have only two of these rings, so I could not create all three. As my two rings have a 1 and 3 imprinted between the studs, I think I have ring #1 (the smallest) and (...) (20 years ago, 8-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
| (...) Great - we are always looking for constructive help. (...) I don't see the benefit from this - the naming convention is well established and existing part authors know how to work with it. Is it that hard to learn? (...) Yes - as I have (...) (20 years ago, 8-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
|
