 | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) Yes, that's true, but in such cases there are generally lines separating the polygons (parts), and people expect to see those in the render. The problem we're talking about here is artifacts showing up on the faces of individual parts where (...) (17 years ago, 7-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions [DAT]
|
|
Something else to consider is that T junctions will often appear in model files themselves between two parts as shown in this simple example. 0 Model exported from LeoCAD 0 Original name: 1 4 20.00 -24.00 30.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 (...) (17 years ago, 7-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) No there's not. I'm a physicist... not an engineer ;) Tim (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) blah, blah, blah, snip Oops, I was trying to be all ironical in a geeky math sorta way. But apparently I failed. Guess I shoulda used more winkies... Do people still use winkies? Or have they gone obsolete like ASCII art? Anyhow, sorry about (...) (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) There is, however, such a thing as an impractical problem ;) ROSCO (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) Well actually what txt2dat does is a slightly different problem - it has a few simple closed loops and has to triangulate the complex polygons bounded by them (it uses the excellent (URL) triangle library> to do that). Renderers on the other (...) (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) OK, I stand corrected. Technically a program can fix things a load time. However, you might be surprised at how long it takes. It's "only" O(n^2), but each iteration is slow. You have to search the current line segment against all other line (...) (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) Well... Technically it is true. The rendering program ought to be able to scan all the points in each part and look for intersections with every edge in the part. Then break up the offensive T-joins automagically and render it perfectly. (...) (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) Arguably it's probably the algorithms and/or numerical proccessing that are at fault. Certainly when you design scientific code algorithms they should usually be created in such a way that it minimises numerical error. Of course I don't expect (...) (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) I'd really appreciate it if you didn't blame it on the rendering programs. There's really nothing that they can do to fix the problem. I can understand why you might feel that they are at fault, but it really isn't true. As such, you might (...) (17 years ago, 6-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) I try to minimise file size whenever possible myself and have nothing against T juctions. While the gaps can be annoying I feel that they are a fault of the rendering program rather than the parts. (17 years ago, 4-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of Parts (esp. Wheels & Tires)
|
|
El-Lutzo schrieb: (...) I am also often confused by the naming. For that I have started to have my own translation table for which wheel fits to which tyre. The problem at this point is, that there are many official parts out and I think it might (...) (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) Sounds reasonable to me. Any chance a T-junctions FAQ could be created on the parts tracker reference page, and the above could make it into a policy statement in the parts review FAQ? Most of my original post here could be used as the FAQ, (...) (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) T-junctions are a quality issue in part files. I don't think they should be strictly forbidden (that is, having T-junctions is not a reason to hold a part file from official release). Generally, I wouldn't even say that a part with T-junctions (...) (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) Heh, I think I found the (URL) ASCII art>. I coulda sworn it made it into a FAQ somewhere though. Oh well. Have fun, Don (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
--snip-- (...) Just to be clear it's not the render time I'm worried about... it's the authoring time. Tim (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) Much as I'd like to agree on this, I don't think the fact that nobody posted back then disagreeing with my statement really counts as consensus. I pointed out the problem, but didn't ask for opinions on whether parts should be modeled that (...) (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) There are T-junctions there, but the ones that produce the most visible dots are between the white stripe and the moon. Both of those colors are light, so the dark background showing through is much higher contrast, which makes the dots much (...) (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) It's not really constrained to high zoom. If you have a 1% chance of any given pixel along any given T-junction boundary edge resulting in a hole, then you'll have the roughly the same number of holes at any zoom level, since in general the (...) (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) This is a really old issue. I think the previous consensus was that (URL) T-Junctions are bad.> Look at the bottom of the message for the comments on T-Junctions. Actually this is such an old issue, I could swear there was an ASCII art (...) (17 years ago, 4-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Naming of Parts (esp. Wheels & Tires)
|
|
Hi, Perhaps it is just me, but I am often confused when trying to find matching parts. For example, there is a wheel center 50944 or 42610, which is named 11 x 6 mm. In fact it is 11.2 x 6.4 mm which also more fits to LEGO dimensions. That is not (...) (17 years ago, 4-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) in all the parts I've made so far there is just one with a t-junction: (URL) (if I remember correctly it's where the two red quads are surrounded by the white border) but it is forgiveable I think, as it was one of the first parts I've ever (...) (17 years ago, 4-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
(...) It's possible that by setting up meshes POVray can largely avoid the problem as it rotates points and then joins them. My opinion is that Part Authors should stick to keeping the polygon count down rather than jumping through hoops to try to (...) (17 years ago, 4-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions
|
|
If you are a part author, I'd appreciate it if you read this post. I know it's long, but it needs to be in order to correctly describe the issue. When looking at one one of the parts in the inaugural Part of the Month contest in LDView (on my work (...) (17 years ago, 4-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Hook Coupling 737c01.dat and 444.dat train wheel.
|
|
Reinhard "Ben" Beneke schrieb: (...) I just found on Peeron the following part: x468cx1 Electric 4.5V Battery Box 6 x 11 x 3 & 1/3 with Red Dot and Single Plugs In the instruction it seems to be the same as x468cx4 Electric 4.5V Battery Box 6 x 11 x (...) (17 years ago, 26-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Hook Coupling 737c01.dat and 444.dat train wheel.
|
|
Reinhard "Ben" Beneke schrieb: (...) I just saw this old message and I do not know wheather you have seen this: (URL) (17 years ago, 26-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: " (needs work)" officially sanctioned by LSC
|
|
(...) I also have not had problems accessing your site. I am using FF 2.0.0.2. Sounds like there may be a router issue somewhere between you & Willy. ROSCO (17 years ago, 25-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: " (needs work)" officially sanctioned by LSC
|
|
Willy Tschager schrieb: (...) I have really no idea what is going on there. I have still no problems to reach my sides. I send to you the new version by separate Email. But again, I can not see any fault on the server side. cu Michael Heidemann (17 years ago, 25-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: " (needs work)" officially sanctioned by LSC
|
|
(...) the direct link doesn't work neither :-( tried with firefox 2.1 and bill's "browser" (sic!) on three different machines, with two different providers. I get your pop-up add but the page is not reachable. w. (17 years ago, 25-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: " (needs work)" officially sanctioned by LSC
|
|
Willy Tschager schrieb: (...) Just tried to connect and I have access. I have never heard before that there are problems. The pages are hostet at arcor, which is one of the biggest hoster. (URL) is the direct link to the download page. Michael (...) (17 years ago, 24-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: " (needs work)" officially sanctioned by LSC
|
|
(...) site is down :-( ... mike, it happens quiet frequently that www.michael-heidemann.de is not reachable. anything you can do on that? w. (17 years ago, 24-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: " (needs work)" officially sanctioned by LSC
|
|
mikeheide schrieb: (...) A new Version of DATHeader is now available at www.michael-heidemann.de. Any comments are welcome Michael Heidemann (17 years ago, 24-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: " (needs work)" officially sanctioned by LSC
|
|
Travis Cobbs schrieb: (...) Good News! I have to go to update DATHeader. There should be a new version available tomorrow. (17 years ago, 23-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: " (needs work)" officially sanctioned by LSC
|
|
Yeah! Thanks guys! Big encouragement to set my parts moving again and hopefully it will encourage the community by getting a lot more parts more readily available. -Matt :) (...) ---...--- www.auctionbrick.com - username mchiles Matt Chiles 1006 (...) (17 years ago, 23-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | " (needs work)" officially sanctioned by LSC
|
|
The LDraw Standards Committee (LSC) has officially sanctioned the use of " (needs work)" in part titles to allow parts to be certified with known problems. Note that this has been used for years now in the library, but many part authors and (...) (17 years ago, 22-Feb-07, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New parts you would like to see Lego add?
|
|
(...) Don't have any LDraw files, but here are some pieces that I've found myself wishing were available: Bricks and plates 1 x 5 and 2 x 5, especially in light gray and blue, but all colors would be welcome. Sometimes 1 x 7 and 2 x 7. There are (...) (17 years ago, 13-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New parts you would like to see Lego add?
|
|
(...) 1x3 jumper with 2 studs on top would be very useful versus a normal jumper, a 1x1 tile and delicate positioning :) (17 years ago, 9-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New parts you would like to see Lego add?
|
|
(...) Deborah.... all I can say is WOW!!! So many useful pieces that I too would wish for... such as... Low slopes (3x3 inside corner, 1x2 half pyramid peak, 1x2 gable connector) Macaroni Bricks (2x2 smooth top, 2x2 tile, I would add 2x2 without (...) (17 years ago, 9-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New parts you would like to see Lego add?
|
|
(...) I don't have an LDraw file to submit, but here's a couple of my ideas from a thread that deborah started a while back: (URL) with the 3x3 brick I'd love to also see a 3x3 plate, of course. :) Regards, Allan B. (17 years ago, 9-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New parts you would like to see Lego add?
|
|
(...) people would like to see the Lego Company add to thier inventory. Maybe (...) seperate category in LDraw files or a subcategory of parts if not in this (...) any of the parts in my (URL) folder would be much appreciated. -§ deborah (...) (17 years ago, 9-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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? (17 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 (17 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 (17 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 (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (...) (17 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 (17 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 (17 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)
|
| |
| | DAT file for 4531-9V Switches
|
|
Looking for a DAT file of the 9V Switches (Left + Right). Can't seem to find it on LDraw's parts tracker searching for 4531. Thanks in advance for any help tracking it down. (18 years ago, 31-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | New Part: 3069bpw1.dat - Tile 1 x 2 with Playing Cards Pattern
|
|
hi folks, I've just uploaded this part to the PT: (2 URLs) w. (18 years ago, 29-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Helper applications for 3D modeling
|
|
(...) You may want to try 3Dto3D It can convert dat files to and from sevral formats including obj and 3DS . You can download it at: (URL) (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Helper applications for 3D modeling
|
|
(...) That's pretty interesting, so it's certainly worth a try. Converting to LDraw format could be difficult, though. But I know of a tool from another 3d project I've been working with, the game VegaStrike, called mesher.exe, which can convert (...) (18 years ago, 23-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Part request: x41
|
|
Hello, I've been trying to experiment in making new headlights and I discovered that a 1x1 round fits perfectly in the space of this visor: (URL) the part does not seem to exist in CAD and I'm in the process of sorting my collection so I can't do a (...) (18 years ago, 21-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Helper applications for 3D modeling
|
|
I've been long annoyed at the lack of a ponytail hair piece in LDraw, but unfortunately I've never been in much of a position to model one. Modeling new parts is painstaking work. I did get to thinking, though, that for parts that are so complex, (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | LSC adopts "de-facto" BFC standard as the draft standard
|
|
The LDraw Standards Committee (LSC) has adopted the "de-facto" Back Face Culling (BFC) standard ((URL) as their draft standard. We are now working on clarifying a few minor ambiguities in the draft standard so that it can be ratified as the official (...) (18 years ago, 15-Oct-06, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Question to parts authors about BFC CERTIFY
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Travis Cobbs wrote: > So, my question is this: should I remove this warning from LDView for commands > that contain options in addition to CERTIFY and CW/CCW? I definitely think that > it's appropriate to warn when multiple (...) (18 years ago, 12-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Question to parts authors about BFC CERTIFY [DAT]
|
|
As many parts authors are aware, LDView produces a warning if it finds more than one instance of the CERTIFY option among the BFC commands in one file. For example, the following will produce a warning on the second BFC command: 0 BFC CERTIFY CCW 1 (...) (18 years ago, 12-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New parts header format validated by the LSC
|
|
LOL, I think it'll be totally free from bugs before I have even time to THINK about making new parts ;) Anyways, it's a relief that I don't have to worry about this too at the moment... CYA sometime next summer Cheers NB (18 years ago, 9-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non square stud groups?
|
|
(...) Search for "stug" and you'll find some threads about this. The biggest problem I see is one of confusion and consequent complication. Due to stud orientation you cannot rotate a 1x4 stud group by 90 degrees to get a 4x1 stud group - so you (...) (18 years ago, 8-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Non square stud groups?
|
|
(...) Search for "stug" and you'll find some threads about this. The biggest problem I see is one of confusion and consequent complication. Due to stud orientation you cannot rotate a 1x4 stud group by 90 degrees to get a 4x1 stud group - so you (...) (18 years ago, 8-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: New parts header format validated by the LSC
|
|
Niels Bugge schrieb: (...) You can give my new program DATHeader (Windows) a try to maintain the correct header. First Bug fixes are made, so I think it could be useful for you. cu MikeHeide (18 years ago, 8-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New parts header format validated by the LSC
|
|
(...) Yes, as an author you will need to worry about it for newly submitted parts, because the Parts Tracker submit process will start checking for adherence to this. We will take care of the existing officlal library and the files currently on the (...) (18 years ago, 7-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New parts header format validated by the LSC
|
|
I'm sorry if this question has ben brought up in other threads, but I'm really streached thin with real life business at the moment and can't really follow the pt or lugnet (at least for the next half year). ...I'd just like to know if this header (...) (18 years ago, 6-Oct-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New parts header format validated by the LSC
|
|
(...) This format has now been adopted - see Appendix I of (URL) (18 years ago, 29-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | New parts header format - Appendix I
|
|
The LDraw Standards Committee (LSC) has added Appendix I to the LDraw parts header format to cover the options available to the !LDRAW ORG meta-command Please see Appendix I of the (URL) parts header format> for full details. --William Howard (...) (18 years ago, 29-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Door 1 x 4 x 6 with 3 Panes with color X Glass
|
|
(...) Not exactly. If Peeron shows a 'real' number for a part, we'll sure use it in creating an LDraw part file. But when the 'real' number is unknown, LDraw.org and Peeron each maintain their own set of xNNN numbers (except I think Peeron is in the (...) (18 years ago, 29-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Door 1 x 4 x 6 with 3 Panes with color X Glass
|
|
(...) I thougt Peeron was accurate and that we name our parts like Peeron? (18 years ago, 29-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | RE: Door 1 x 4 x 6 with 3 Panes with color X Glass
|
|
(URL) Message----- From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway...ugnet.com] On Behalf Of Jaco van der Molen Sent: 28 September 2006 19:26 To: lugnet.cad.dat.parts@lugnet.com Subject: Door 1 x 4 x 6 with 3 Panes with color X Glass Hi there, (...) (18 years ago, 28-Sep-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
