 | | Re: Is anyone working on 32745?
|
|
(...) I wanted to start that part some month ago, but at a closer look I decided to not doing it because it is a real challenge. But I want that part very, very much. So please go ahead and make my dream come true. cu mikeheide (18 years ago, 27-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Is anyone working on 32745?
|
|
Hi all, Just thought I'd check to see if anyone was working on part 32475 ((URL) It's a horrid part to work on so I'm hoping someone has but realise it's probably unlikely. Thanks, Tim (18 years ago, 27-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Inappropriate(?) use of stud.dat in 30035.dat
|
|
(...) You are right, but there are only three lines of code (easily created with MLCad) that would be substituted with such a new primitive. I think it is not worth. cu mikeheide (18 years ago, 26-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Inappropriate(?) use of stud.dat in 30035.dat
|
|
(...) OK, I sent an updated version to the tracker admins, and BFCd it while I was at it. --Travis (18 years ago, 26-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Inappropriate(?) use of stud.dat in 30035.dat
|
|
(...) Perhaps if there was a unit capped cylinder in the primitives authors would not be driven to use studs? Philo (18 years ago, 26-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of Power Functions Parts lacks consistency
|
|
(...) OK, I'll do that (no votes yet...) (...) I agree. Philo (18 years ago, 26-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Inappropriate(?) use of stud.dat in 30035.dat
|
|
(...) As far as I remember this is formally ok. But you are right, this should be avoided. Please correct that and send the file to the PT. cu mikeheide (18 years ago, 25-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Inappropriate(?) use of stud.dat in 30035.dat
|
|
30035.dat uses stud.dat in a location that isn't really a stud, but is the same shape as a stud. This leads to a rendering problem if stud logos are enabled: (URL) (Notice the LEGO logo peeking out from under the pole.) Is the above considered (...) (18 years ago, 25-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of Power Functions Parts lacks consistency
|
|
(...) If there are no current votes on the part I suggest to resubmit them. If they have already a certify vote send an email to the admin with a link to the part and the change he should do. I think also "Electric Power Functions" is a good name (...) (18 years ago, 25-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Naming of Power Functions Parts lacks consistency
|
|
(...) I should indeed have paid more attention to that. Would it be best to resubmit parts with correct name, or simply (for me!!!) do an admin edit? Philo (18 years ago, 25-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
