 | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) "A playground for perfectionists" Excellent summary of what I am trying to say. Most of us are not perfectionists even if we would like to be, and we don't have time to be perfectionists. But we do want useable parts. There is a step below (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) Looking at the comments so far we seem to be answering two different questions so I'm going to explicitly ask both of them: Should we try to model the idealised part? Should a part by held if it matches a real part but not an "ideal" part? Tim (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) My individual opinion (as opposed to the consensus opinion of the admins) is in general, I'd prefer the idealized pattern. Since mis-registrations cause many variations, it's 'better' to go for the middle ground. Since it's not always clear (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? (loads of pics.)
|
|
(...) THINK they should've produced" and I correct any printing errors, like (...) misalignment, shades of color... In the past I had the same (...) the patterns I made and it cost me 2 month to get rid (...) Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) Hi Willy, In that case I would argue that the onus should be on the designer to choose whether or not to model the ideal or real pattern. If their part is a really weird one then it can be held but if all copies people can see are the same (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) Yeah, tell me about it! Me and a friend made a mock-up of the sign for the Datsville post office: (URL) low-res picture shows just a little of the flaw, but the letter 'S' is just so wrong. We decided to let it reach below the other three (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) hi mike, I design my patterns (URL) the way "I THINK they should've produced" and I correct any printing errors, like overlaps, misalignment, shades of color... In the past I had the same problem with many of the patterns I made and it cost me (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) I agree that it shouldn't be held for this reason. As for the original question, I think that they should be modeled in the way that it appears they were "intended" to be if and only if at least one of the various copies of the part that show (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) - snippage - (...) I'll agree 85% with Matt. As a casual LDraw user, I'd love to see new parts being available more quickly, which might be done with a more streamlined process. What I agree with Matt about is perhaps redefining the level of (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) You know, this piece typifies the problem with the process and why no new parts get published, at least from my view. The burden of detail required for approval is too onerous. In this particular part the ice cream is fine either way - as the (...) (18 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
I had the same argument with Steffen about part 3010pt6.dat (URL) I have a few of these bricks and all of them show the pattern slightly off-center. Also online pictures of this brick seem to be identical. Therefore I created the digital version of (...) (18 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) Personally I prefer parts to look as they look not as they "should" look. Sometimes you can even use these imperfections to achieve good effects. Tim (18 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
I got a hold vote some time ago to the part: (URL) do not agree with Steffen. I think we should try to be realistic. What is your opinion? And what is the opinion of the admins? cu MikeHeide (18 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Still Missing primitives
|
|
(...) The other day I started from scratch, installed 027, then the latest official release, and then all the unofficial parts. I did not run into any missing primatives. Previously I had had problems with some full width liftarms and axleholes. (...) (18 years ago, 14-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Still Missing primitives
|
|
(...) The other day I started from scratch, installed 027, then the latest official release, and then all the unofficial parts. I did not run into any missing primatives. Previously I had had problems with some full width liftarms and axleholes. (...) (18 years ago, 14-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Missing primitives after part update.
|
|
(...) Is there a "scan parts" command somewhere in the mlcad file menu? Maybe that'll fix it. Otherwise, you might get a better answer for this in the mlcad newsgroup, so I'm sending you there. (18 years ago, 14-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Still Missing primitives
|
|
(...) Hello Michael, I have the same problem and re-installed 3 time know. I hope somebody can help us! Tymen (18 years ago, 12-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | dat file for wedge piece 50955 and 50956
|
|
Hello dear fellows! For the instructions of a new model I would need .dat files for the newer wedge pieces: (URL) 50955 ((URL)) and (URL) 50956 ((URL)) Unfortunately it has not been made yet. However there exist the wedge pieces for: (URL) 42060 (...) (18 years ago, 10-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.mlcad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Still Missing primitives
|
|
Hello, After installing ldraw027.exe and the complete library update, I am still missing primitives! What Am I Doing Wrong?? Michael (18 years ago, 3-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Missing primitives after part update.
|
|
(...) Hello again, No, I had not installed ldraw027.exe. My version of Ldraw came from a CD, along with other tools like MLCAD and POV-Ray. I have tried the part update on two separate computers, with the same Missing Primitives result. I will try (...) (18 years ago, 1-Dec-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
