 | | Re: New game: Orphan part of the week
|
|
(...) Making posts like this is a good idea. More communication. :) (...) Definitely don't just update somebody's part without saying something. Emails only take a moment to send. (...) 3-4 months is a long time to wait for a reply to an email. How (...) (20 years ago, 16-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New game: Orphan part of the week
|
|
(...) I think the method we currently use is good: Make all reasonable efforts to contact the author. If the author doesn't reply after a reasonable period of time (3-4 months is good) then make the fixes needed. Also, many held parts are known to (...) (20 years ago, 15-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New game: Orphan part of the week
|
|
(...) Yes, I think that sounds like a good idea. The Contributor Agreement we are putting in place addresses taking over orphans inasmuch as authors agree that LDraw.org has: " - The right to create derivative works of the Work" That covers it I (...) (20 years ago, 15-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New game: Orphan part of the week
|
|
(...) If we have not done so already, I would say we make a 'ophaned parts clause' and display it on the parts tracker pages. I would say if there has been no author or last change author changes or notes for some period of time, the part would be (...) (20 years ago, 15-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New game: Orphan part of the week
|
|
(...) That's just too funny of a vision not to snicker at. Thanks. (although the Pepsi in my nose isn't going to leave a mark, is it?) (...) I would... although it might be worth dropping a note to the last known addy for John Van Z, after that, if (...) (20 years ago, 14-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | New game: Orphan part of the week
|
|
dear authors, I thought al lot about hold voted parts an orphans over the last couple of weeks. getting a hold vote at the PT to me is almost a slap in the face therefore I try to fix my parts as soon as I can. at the same time I'm also aware that (...) (20 years ago, 14-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Who Uses Original LDraw? (Was: ... Rocket Launch Pattern)
|
|
(...) We're doing everything we can to secure that, behind the scenes, although we don't yet have it, it's only a communication issue, we're pretty sure. I'd rather not go into more detail than that for privacy reasons. (...) That's a key point. We (...) (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)
|
|
(...) Having an official reference implemention would put us in a better position in several ways. For the parts library, we could resolve a number of nagging issues, like the dithered-colors-have...e-subfiled restriction. For the rendering (...) (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)
|
|
(...) You have some valid points here but I want to respond to this one specifically. The copyright decision has been made. It was finalized a month and a half ago. What are we waiting for? We're are waiting for consent from the Jessiman's to go (...) (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)
|
|
(...) I never knew James; I became aware of LDraw a long time after he has passed away. I have no idea what would be best for the file system, the prog, to honour his accomplishments ... actually I don't care about much. I'm not very good in this (...) (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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
