 | | Re: 2 Part requests. [DAT]
|
|
(...) here you go. just finished 0 Tile 1 x 4 with Train Controls Pattern 0 Name: 2431px17.dat 0 Unofficial Element 0 Author : tburger34@adelphia.net 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 s2431bs01.dat 4 16 -18.75 0 9.5 -18 0 10 -18 0 -10 -18.75 0 -9.5 4 16 (...) (18 years ago, 13-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 Part requests. [DAT]
|
|
(...) heres x461.dat. 0 Train Steam Cylinder 2 x 2 x 1 & 2/3 Curved 0 Name: x461.ldr 0 ROTATION CENTER 0 0 0 1 "Custom" 0 ROTATION CONFIG 0 0 1 16 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 1 stud3.dat 0 BFC CERTIFY INVERTNEXT 1 16 0 8 0 16 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 6 box5.dat 4 (...) (18 years ago, 12-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 Part requests.
|
|
1.) Train steam cylinder(the one found on all the grey era 12v and 4.5v steam engines.) (URL) 2.) The 1x4 tile with the control pannel found in the BNSF Locomotive. (URL) As I mentioned Peeron.com was down last night so I couldn't get exact details, (...) (18 years ago, 11-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 2 Part requests.
|
|
Some clarification: (...) There have been two versions of this part: (URL) an older type with rectangular edges> and (URL) a newer type with rounded edges>, each one accepting a differend type of piston rod. So, you should indicate what type you're (...) (18 years ago, 11-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | 2 Part requests.
|
|
I am looking for 2 parts. Unfortunity, Peeron.com is offline right now so I can't get part numbers. If anyone has made these parts already I would appreciate it if you could provide a link to them. 1.) Train steam cylinder(the one found on all the (...) (18 years ago, 11-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Bionicle parts
|
|
My son ask me to build his MOC's with LDraw, but very much of the bionicle parts are missing in the official libary and also on the parts tracker. Please, if someone has these parts also only as mockup, please let me have these files, so I can make (...) (18 years ago, 9-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: 3149* variations
|
|
(...) This was a unilateral admin decision to maintain backward compatibility. We already have 3149a.dat, 3149b.dat and 3149c.dat in the official library, but used in a way that is contrary to the current practice. Nowadays we try to use different (...) (18 years ago, 7-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 3149* variations
|
|
Hi all. Why are the 3149c parts labelled d and e rather than a and b? I can't see any comments or lugnet posts explaining why. Thanks (18 years ago, 6-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 2431px4 - Tile, Decorated 1 x 4 with Hieroglyphs and Minifig Pattern
|
|
Anyone working on this patterned tile? (URL) Regards, Ludo (18 years ago, 1-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: parts i'd like to see in Lcad/MLcad
|
|
(...) Got it! The problem was that I did not save the subfile in the S\ folder - I didn't understand what was going on until I more carefully read the warning upon opening the 's' parts in MLcad: "s\43710s01.dat not found, continue loading?" I (...) (18 years ago, 2-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: parts i'd like to see in Lcad/MLcad
|
|
(...) So you're having trouble with the "right hand" part, 43711.dat? There is no "mirror" of s\43710s01.dat - the reference from 43711.dat to the subfile does the mirroring. So no file is "missing" - it isn't needed. It *sounds* like something is (...) (18 years ago, 2-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: parts i'd like to see in Lcad/MLcad
|
|
(...) SNIP I saved that subfile-the mirror of that one is the one missing on the LDraw site (link goes to the same subfile). Even with all the files saved & new partslist created it shows up as stud only. should i load the subfile first, create (...) (18 years ago, 1-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Disappearing backslash? (was: parts i'd like to see in Lcad/MLcad)
|
|
XFUT lugnet.admin.general (...) This is odd. When viewing my original posting through the web interface, the backslash between 'ldraw' and 'parts' is not displayed. But looking at the raw message, the backslash is actually present. I wonder if this (...) (18 years ago, 1-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: parts i'd like to see in Lcad/MLcad
|
|
(...) I'm guessing the one subfile you are missing is this one: (URL) Because that subfile is the entire part, except for the stud. Download this file to your ldrawpartss directory, and MLCAD should be happier. Steve (18 years ago, 1-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: parts i'd like to see in Lcad/MLcad
|
|
I've tried downloading the files & subfiles (one subfile is missing-can't remember which now) & can't get them to work; onlt a stud shows up in MLcad jeff (18 years ago, 1-Aug-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
(...) I've been running into problems with this when designing parts and also when looking at primitive substituted versions of parts featuring parts of circles. In terms of appearance sometimes it would be much better to overlap some primitives or (...) (18 years ago, 15-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Overlapping primitives - a reason to Hold a part?
|
|
What is the policy on overlapping primitives in a part? Is it OK? Is it frowned upon? Is it accepted as the norm? Is it only accepted under exceptional circumstances? It excessive over-lapping of primitives (or quads/tris) a reason to Hold a part? (...) (18 years ago, 15-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Comment for Admin flag on Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) This has been discussed before, at least between Chris and I. Basically, checking the box would generate an email to us admins, and we'd address the issue from there. But I think it would be better to have a checkbox which is wholly separate (...) (18 years ago, 12-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Comment for Admin flag on Parts Tracker
|
|
Would it be useful to add a check-box to the Parts Tracker review page to indicate if the comment indicates need for Admin intervention. eg "Certify - Looking good!" wouldn't have the flag set, but "Certify - please add spaces before the dimensions" (...) (18 years ago, 12-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw SteerCo: Policy update when fixing others parts
|
|
(...) Great idea! Would it be possible to split the PT held list into two - those parts Held less than 3 months and those parts Held great than 3 months (18 years ago, 11-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
