 | | New parts you would like to see Lego add?
|
|
The idea is for for LDraw files of Lego parts that don't actualy exist, but that people would like to see the Lego Company add to thier inventory. Maybe a seperate category in LDraw files or a subcategory of parts if not in this category. New (...) (18 years ago, 9-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: newbie needs help w/ 2 things...please.
|
|
(...) * Settings > General > Change... > Rendering Tab * Chose your color in the "Preview options" box * Hit "Ok" (...) * use the minifig generator instead * click icon in "Extras Toolbar" or * Extras > Generators > Minifig... other basics can be (...) (18 years ago, 1-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | newbie needs help w/ 2 things...please.
|
|
1st, all of my parts are coming up in black in the windows where you pick them, causing problems on the detailed or printed bricks. 2nd, how do i line up hands with arms, and arms with torsos? (18 years ago, 1-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) Have you counted the ones at the Tracker? (URL) are currently 30 parts or shortcuts with (nedds work) in description line. /Tore (18 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) That's why as a part reviewer I try to follow this guidelines and I am much stricter that my own opinion would lead me. Yes, I am for some relaxation of the rules in order to get more "good enough" parts. Philo (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) You're right MAtt, "Only the best is good enough" but "la surqualité est de la non-qualité" (overquality is non-quality) and "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" (better is enemy of good). Didier (18 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) An excellent idea. If my vote counts for anything, I say yes. Under the Needs Work comment authors or reviews could then note specific items that need to be done such as "Needs BFC" or "Underside needs more detail" or "needs more primitives in (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) This thread also seems to have brought up another very important question: Are the current review policies too strict, preventing parts that are "good enough" from getting in to users' hands in a timely manner? I've seen a number of posts in (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) I did a quick scan of the official parts on my hard drive. The most recent one with "(needs work)" in the part title is 30375s01 (Minifig Mechanical Torso without Chest/Rib Surface (Needs Work)), and it's from the 2002-05 update. There are two (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) That is good advice because I have had more than one part I authored get held ONLY because the reviewer thought it should be BFCed when no claim was made by the part that it should be BFCed. BFCing may be a good idea, and if someone wants to (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Missing primitives after part update.
|
|
(...) Did you install ldraw027.exe? Not having done that seems to me to be the most likely cause of your problem. You have to install ldraw027 prior to installing any updates (including the complete update). This should change once the library gets (...) (18 years ago, 30-Nov-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Missing primitives after part update.
|
|
(...) Hi Michael, It is pretty hard for us to diagnose this without a lot of details of mising files. Before we go down that road, I would recommend you try again, or start over with empty ldraw/parts ldraw/parts/s and ldraw/p folders (directories). (...) (18 years ago, 30-Nov-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Missing primitives after part update.
|
|
Hello, This is my first post, so please bear with me if I screw up. I have downloaded the Ldraw part updates, and installed them according to the instructions posted at the update site. My problem is that, every time I opened a parts folder in (...) (18 years ago, 30-Nov-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Tyre 30.4x14
|
|
ludo soete schrieb: (...) On Peeron this part has the number: 30391. But it is not on the parts tracker. mikeheide (18 years ago, 26-Nov-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Tyre 30.4x14 VR
|
|
Hi all, Anyone having a mocup from the following tyre? (...) Any help with a mocup is apreciated. Regards, Ludo (18 years ago, 25-Nov-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Tyre 30.4x14
|
|
Hi all, Anyone having a mocup from the following tyre? (URL) I noticed the request for it abouth 4 years ago, and it is still not apearing on the LDRAW site - unofficial parts. Any help with a mocup is apreciated. Regards, Ludo (18 years ago, 25-Nov-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT file for 4531-9V Switches
|
|
(...) on LDraw's parts tracker searching for 4531. Thanks in advance for any (...) tracking it down. Hi, Take here a look for a mocup of the 9V RC points (100% plastic) by Thomas Burger: (URL) They are build after my mocup for the 9V point (with (...) (18 years ago, 25-Nov-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | parts for german old toy "plasticant"
|
|
When I was a child I played with Lego Bricks and also with the building toy plasticant. Last days my son found the last pieces that I have and my idea was to bring that into LDraw parts. You can found the parts that I already made on my webside (...) (18 years ago, 23-Nov-06, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | BFC extension ratified by the LSC
|
|
The LDraw Standards Committee (LSC) has ratified the Back Face Culling (BFC) language extension. The de-facto BFC standard was adopted by the LSC as their working draft (see (URL) and we have since been working to clarify and/or remove any (...) (18 years ago, 9-Nov-06, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT file for 4531-9V Switches
|
|
Ed Andrews schrieb: (...) The number 4531 is the set number. Please have a look at peeron at (URL) to see the part numbers. I do not believe that they already made in LDraw. cu MikeHeide (18 years ago, 1-Nov-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
