 | | Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
I'm not a reviwer, so I have to post my issues here. Part 422 (URL) just confuses me. Why is is 422? It's the base part of 122c01 and 122c02; since the other component of those parts is part 20, wouldn't this part be 122? Also, the title is weird; (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) This part has a bad history. Originally 122.dat was used for the combo part of the base and the wheels. To maintain backward compatibility when this was changed to 122c01.dat, 122.dat became a "~Moved to" file. So now we cannot go back and use (...) (21 years ago, 9-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) I believe it's being added in step 2 here: (URL) that later rigging can be run through the holes (URL) TWS Garrison (URL) capital letters in address for direct reply. (21 years ago, 9-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Greatsword in Color Other Than Silver?
|
|
(...) I've never seen it in Gold; I've *always* seen it in Silver. Which set contains one of these in Gold (or whatever other color)? Franklin (21 years ago, 9-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Greatsword in Color Other Than Silver?
|
|
(...) It's one of the Oriental Adventures sets. Ummm...Checking Peeron... This one: [LEGOSet 7417] 7417 Temple of Mount Everest -Orion (21 years ago, 9-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Greatsword in Color Other Than Silver?
|
|
(...) The golden greatsword was the treasure in one of the adventurers/orient expedition sets. Hmm...this one: (URL) sets in that subtheme had different treasures in gold: a shield in the Scorpion Palace, a helm in the Dragon Fortress. Hmm, I don't (...) (21 years ago, 9-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) Thanks for this information - I have now removed the leading "_" to make this appear as a true part. Chris (21 years ago, 10-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) I personally think it would be worth leaving this as-is, because this part originally appeared in the 2002-03 parts update, but the gold version didn't come out until 2003. I wouldn't want to have to delete cmdline statements from official (...) (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) Could we have a review/explanation of the use of CMDLINE again? (or a pointer to documentation). While I support not making unnecessary changes, I'm not sure I understand if this one is necessary or not. (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) Basically the CMDLINE staement specifies a default color for the part. This is useful if the part only came in one color. I far as I know, no LDraw programs actually use this Meta command. -Orion (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) Thanks. What would the downside be of, over time, as parts go through review and renewal anyway, gradually discontinuing the use of this command? It is not a large number of parts that use this anyway, right? ++Lar (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) I would say that it's a good thing to leave them in. 2 reasons for this: - Once developers decide they want to support it, the implementation is aleady there. - To remove them would force all the parts that have the command to go thruogh PT (...) (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) This is always a good argument against removing any syntax. But see below. (...) As is this one. But see below. (...) Not a large number in the scheme of things really. IF the change is done to parts as they are changed anyway... I guess what (...) (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) I've never used "CMDLINE -c" except under protest, and dislike its inherent obsolesence. One could argue that almost EVERY part occurs in only one colour the first time it is produced. As soon as the second colour is produced the dat file is (...) (21 years ago, 12-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) Just a note: in this situation (which apparently is not actually the situation), this file should have used a tilde (~), not an underscore. Underscores are for "official part shortcuts", which are relatively rare creatures. Steve (21 years ago, 12-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) The CMDLINE meta-statement was originally created to give us some way of giving rendering suggestions to programs that use the parts library. For instance, it was thought that we could specify a 180deg rotation for all those panel parts (like (...) (21 years ago, 13-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: CMDLINE (Issues on Parts Tracker)
|
|
I like using the CMDLINE as a concise way of documenting the default (i.e., the *usual*, not necessarily the *only*) color of a part. The CMDLINE is usually shorter than the corresponding sentence. For example, for the Minifig Flame, I'd rather see (...) (21 years ago, 14-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: CMDLINE (Issues on Parts Tracker)
|
|
(...) I have always liked CMDLINE followed by a default colour, and I have the feeling that I am one of those who have used it most times. I also think it really is a pity that it hasn't been used by any [online] catalog or other partlisters (that I (...) (21 years ago, 15-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
