 | | Re: ~Use and ~Moved
|
|
(...) Sorry, I didn't know that, I thought it was an LDraw issue. (...) It's also the id currently in use by TLC and I think it's easier to mimic their system as close as possible, than to reinvent a wheel. (...) Aliasing is the reply. 44237 and (...) (20 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: ~Use and ~Moved
|
|
(...) I think this is a Peeron question more than an LDraw question. For me, it would be confusing to have two different numbers in use for what's a functionally identical part. It kind of depends on the direction you're coming from -- as far as (...) (20 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: ~Use and ~Moved
|
|
(...) I think I'm missing something here. I downloaded 44237 from the PT and couldn't find "~Use" anywhere. In fact, I don't think I've seen "~Use" in official part files. -Orion (20 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | ~Use and ~Moved
|
|
Hi, could anybody explain these? For example 44237 is valid mold number for 'new' Brick 2 x 6. I don't know what are differences to 2456 and I don't care much. For inventory purposes the number 44237 is important, I think. So why '~Use' - why it (...) (20 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 71427c01update -- needs work?
|
|
Hello, all. I'd hoped to get this out before leaving on christmas vacation -- I'll be back in front of a computer on Wensday (CET). This is an update for 71427c01, to get rid of the depreciated box3#8p, and BFC. (It also fixes minor things that (...) (20 years ago, 25-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | BBB wheels
|
|
(...) I use the files provided on the web site of BBB, and haven't noticed any troubles. They, may be, are huge file ... I don't know, I'm not an expert in this domain. I simply use these files. By the way, the wheels are great stuff to play with. (...) (20 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BBB wheels
|
|
(...) OK they're available on the BBB site (URL) but they're HUGE! Has anyone done a cut-down version? If not, I will attempt it. ROSCO (20 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: stud3 -- hollow vs filled
|
|
(...) Since this question crops up at regular intervals, I've added an explanatory note to the Primitives Reference : (URL) Chris (20 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: stud3 -- hollow vs filled
|
|
(...) Note that FWIW, BrickLink and Peeron and other inventory resources tend not to get to this level of detail either, they typically do not differentiate this. (20 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: stud3 -- hollow vs filled
|
|
(...) Hello, James! [snip description of situation leading up to the question] (...) The standard in the LDraw library is to use stud3.dat for all stud3-type anti-studs, regardless of whether they are actually hollow or solid. The reason is that (...) (20 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | stud3 -- hollow vs filled
|
|
Hello, everyone. When I was working on 71427 (expect a post on l.c.d.parts soon), I noticed that the two small underside studs were modeled with a pair of cyli4-4s and a disk1. When looking for the proper primitive to replace that with, I noticed (...) (20 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch Pattern – RELOADED
|
|
(...) Thanks for the reminder about that! I always forget. Still, a quick "ya we're discussing it" followed by a "what do people think" here doesn't hurt. (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch Pattern – RELOADED
|
|
(...) The LSC mailing list archives are public and a link to them can be found here: (URL) we're not completely out in the open (i.e. discussing policy on Lugnet), our discussions are available for any one who wants to follow along. -Orion (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch Pattern – RELOADED
|
|
(...) Hopefully the latter. I did not intend to have any condescending tone in there at all! I'm talking about appropriate process. If you read it in there I must not have done a very good job of communicating and I apologise. Either that or you're (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch Pattern – RELOADED
|
|
(...) Actually your (and any other non-LSC member's) input is not wothless and actually has a great influence on what decides. We decided when the LSC first formed that we wouldn't do anything without at least discussing the pros and cons with the (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch Pattern – RELOADED
|
|
(...) Yeah, I got the blinking error message in preview and still posted it. I couldn't figure out the problem. Sorry, It must be the .bmp thing. I didn't think of that because they were only 8k apiece, but I can see why you'd want to avoid the (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch Pattern – RELOADED
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Don Heyse wrote: (switched to plain text for clarity) Don, I don't think your FTX image embed worked. Did it work when you used preview (you DID use preview, I am sure)? If it did, there's a technical problem somewhere... (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch Pattern – RELOADED
|
|
(...) Sorry I'm a bit late to the party (been on vacation) but I think you should submit it. It looks good enough for me. Actually I think it's too good not to submit. Compare your part (as seen in LDRAW): (URL) And this official part (as seen in (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New game: Orphan part of the week
|
|
(...) Yes, yes it is. :) (...) Good to know. Maybe I should start a "free to a good home" list of links on the l.c.d.parts sidebar... (...) Heh. I thought about that, too. Give each piece a vector (speed and direction) based on the centerpoint of (...) (20 years ago, 16-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New game: Orphan part of the week
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Willy Tschager wrote: at RANDOM I've chosen: (...) Sure is a pretty part though, isn't it :-) The last thing I would want to do is keep such a beautiful, high-quality part from reaching its full potential and graduating to (...) (20 years ago, 16-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
