 | | Re: Working the held queue
|
|
(...) guys, I was kidding!!! (...) no need. IMHO you're absolutely right on this. please take it to the LSC once the new mailing list is up and running. w. (18 years ago, 30-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Working the held queue
|
|
(...) reasons: 1. Any existing review-votes will be erased. 2. It won't get the file deleted. The only way to get a file deleted is to send an email to the admins, asking for the deletion. Send an email to the parts-admins at parts (at) ldraw (dot) (...) (18 years ago, 30-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Working the held queue
|
|
(...) I agree that perhaps a poll isn't the right way to go, but the part does address a valid problem. While this particular part is a shortcut part, there are other parts in the library that have bad origin/rotation settings that aren't shortcuts. (...) (18 years ago, 29-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Working the held queue
|
|
(...) I agree - part deleted from Parts Tracker. (...) Agreed - I deleted this and moved flowers.dat to 3741c01.dat (...) Deleted (...) I understand the intent, but think this is just one of those legacy issues we have to live with. I see how (...) (18 years ago, 29-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Working the held queue
|
|
(...) I would also like to see a flower shortcut with the flowers in reverse (thin diameter of the flower down, large diameter on top). Thats the way i make my flowers. Regards, Ludo (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Working the held queue
|
|
(...) If others agree that this is worth keeping, I'll change my hold vote. (...) I changed my hold vote for this part (I do think it isn't really needed but a hold vote is too harsh). (18 years ago, 26-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Working the held queue
|
|
hi folks, flicking through he list of held parts at the PT I came across this part: (URL) with peeron (URL) or Bricklink (URL) doesn't say anything about a pattern. I really would like to see this part ripped from the PT (also because the author is (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 6035 - Electric Brick 1 x 2 with Side Light
|
|
As the only visible number on this part is 6034 (the bottom half) should this part be renumbered (moved to) 6034. (18 years ago, 21-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: "My reviews" and overturns
|
|
(...) Yes, it's possible, I think. I mean, I'm sure it's possible, we've got all the data lying around the server. And we're already showing all of "My Reviews". So we'd just have to figure out which parts you've reviewed that have been resubmitted (...) (18 years ago, 18-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | "My reviews" and overturns
|
|
Hi all. Is it possible for the "My reviews" page to show any votes that have been overturned so I know to re check those rather than going through all of them? Thanks (18 years ago, 17-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) Just tested and you're right. I guess the way transparency works in povray means you need a gap between the layers to get mix ups. Tim (18 years ago, 17-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) First of all, you're right about the fact that there's no hole in the surface under studs, and this technically results in incorrect rendering. However, it's not something that people notice. Additionally, the missing hole under studs is (...) (18 years ago, 17-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) Actually, I believe it will look fine in POV-Ray (although I could be wrong). --Travis (18 years ago, 17-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) Travis and Guy have covered the two major issues with overlapped surfaces. As a parts-admin, my view is that while it is better to not overlap surfaces, in some cases the complications required to avoid overlapping are not worth it. So it (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) I may be misunderstanding you here but if it comes to the difference between a part having less primitives or a part displaying correctly I would always encourage displaying correctly. We don't use the Ldraw system to save computer memory, we (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) If you post a hold vote for all parts contain a overlaping between a primitive and a quad or triangle, you must post a hold vote for all parts with contain a stud (ex : all brick !!!). Because all studs are overlaping with quad or box. It is (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) Ahhh. Very good point. I think you'd get problems in povray too. Tim (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) In my other message, I indicated that overlapping polygons will be visible on transparent parts in viewers such as LDView. However, if it is decided that they are ok, it seems to me that you'd be much better off in this instance just using a (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) I don't know what the policy is (or if there is one), but I will point out that it will likely cause artifacts in any transparent parts in any viewer that supports blended transparency (such as LDView). The overlapping sections will get drawn (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) I have used similar techniques a few times now, and the parts have not been held because of it. As far as rendering, most programs seem to be able to handle it ok, so I don't think it should be a reason to hold the part. ROSCO (18 years ago, 15-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
