 | | Classic Windows: How many versions? Please respond! —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | If you look closely at Classic Windows, you'll find that there are diffeences in many details. See (URL) for the details I have found. See suggested 27a.dat, 27b.dat, and 27c.dat (recently posted). The oldest windows I have, have solid studs and (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Classic Windows: How many versions? Please respond! —Niels Karsdorp
|
| | | | | (...) Are the long ledge versions older than the short ledge versions? Why not have the oldest version 'a' and the newer version 'b', etc. The window frame and the glass are actually two seperate parts, glued together. When making the glassed (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Classic Windows: How many versions? Please respond! —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes. (...) You're right. I thought that the 'a' version was the version most likely to be used, but now, looking at tiles and 1x1 round bricks, I noticed that my theory fell. (...) Oh no, so the 7930 door also exists in a without-glass (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Classic Windows: How many versions? Please respond! —Niels Karsdorp
|
| | | | | | Niels: (...) Tore: (...) I don't know about a real glassless version of the 7930 door, but I noticed when rendering the 368 taxi house that the 7930 door did not have glass. The current official LDraw part 7930.dat has no glass! Since I have only (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Classic Windows: How many versions? Please respond! —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | | | (...) That's looking from the manufacturer's point of wiev. I prefer to look at LDrawing from the builder's. When there are TLG part numbers available, of course they should be used. But I see no point wasting 3-digit numbers in vain. (...) Maybe I (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Classic Windows: How many versions? Please respond! —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | Sorry for the delay in responding to your question. Steve (...) [snip] (...) I agree with this. (...) No, it would be 39ac01.dat (...) OK. (...) Again, 29ac01.dat (...) OK. (...) 27ac01.dat (...) OK. (...) 31ac01.dat (...) As long as they're all (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Classic Windows: How many versions? Please respond! —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | | | (...) *sigh* Like I said in another post in this thread: That's from a manufacturer's point of view, it has absolutely no practical use at all for the builder. On the contrary, it just makes unnecessarly complicated and confusing. But thanks for the (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Classic Windows: How many versions? Please respond! —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I know. :\ One practical use: for people who want to make custom-colored window panes. Steve (22 years ago, 18-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Classic Windows: How many versions? Please respond! —Chris Dee
|
| | | | (...) Good idea to keep this complex discussion here. Sorry it's taken me a while to put my thoughts together. I think we should model _all_ functional differences, so * Solid/hollow studs: Dont ignore - hollow studs can receive parts (and we used (...) (22 years ago, 20-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
