 | | Re: searching for people that have 1966-1970 electric parts
|
|
(...) Can you please check the thickness of the pins of the cables. I think the red single connectors are a little bit thinner than the gray double connectors. If so, we have to care about the difference in building the LDraw-Parts. If I am right, (...) (16 years ago, 4-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: searching for people that have 1966-1970 electric parts
|
|
(...) (URL) 002 - have 2 in working condition. Dave K (16 years ago, 3-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | searching for people that have 1966-1970 electric parts
|
|
I am searching for people that still have the electric parts that where produced during the time 1966 - 1970. If you have such parts, please leave a note here. As soon as I have my questions totally clear I will then ask in detail. cu mikeheide (16 years ago, 3-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: need help with 61808.dat
|
|
(...) The thing is that I got this far, but I don't know how to proceed. It's kind of split into three... First, the "wings" that, when assembled, cover the pump. I don't know how long should I make the quadrilaterals. I tried measuring but there (...) (16 years ago, 29-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: need help with 61808.dat
|
|
(...) Please tell us more exactly what problem you run into. So we can help to solve your problem. cu mikeheide (16 years ago, 29-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | need help with 61808.dat [DAT]
|
|
Hey, I've been working on 61808.dat, the Nynrah Ghostblaster, though I've ran into problems with it, which should be quite obvious with a person who hasn't been modeling parts for long and a part as complex as this. I want to get this ready one day, (...) (16 years ago, 29-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: what's wrong with the POTM email?
|
|
(...) And what about LSC email? I have a few issues to submit but got a bounce back a few minutes ago :( Philo (16 years ago, 29-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: what's wrong with the POTM email?
|
|
(...) The motm address should now be fixed. -Orion (16 years ago, 29-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: what's wrong with the POTM email?
|
|
(...) As far as I know Dan and Orion are still working to fix the addresses after we had changes in the DNS. Please send your POTM submissions to my privat address at: ldraw[at]holly-wood(.)it Bye, Willy LDraw Contest Coordinator (16 years ago, 27-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: what's wrong with the POTM email?
|
|
(...) There is a problem with all email to the adresses that ends with ldraw.org. I also do not know exactly what is the problem, but it seems to be bigger because it is still not fixed. (16 years ago, 26-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | what's wrong with the POTM email?
|
|
I was intending to submit 61810.dat to the POTM contest (well, OK, little are my chances, probably, but you never know :) ) though I can't send the email: (...) I did double-check that I'm using the right email address, even sent it another time but (...) (16 years ago, 26-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Fixing the liftarms
|
|
(...) We are aware of this and do have a plan to rectify it. Steve and I went through this a while ago, with a view to distinguishing between beams and lift-arms and consistently naming the beams. I recall our thinking was that "liftarm" would (...) (16 years ago, 24-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Fixing the liftarms
|
|
(...) Excellent Willy. That's awesome. I still hate the names but at least they're consistent. Tim (16 years ago, 21-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Fixing the liftarms
|
|
(...) When I standardized the headers of the certified parts at the PT back in August 2008 I tried to rename them as following: "1 x 1" are called Beams example: (URL) X 0.5" are called liftarm example: (URL) aware that only certified parts apply to (...) (16 years ago, 20-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Fixing the liftarms
|
|
Hi all (and especially Chris Dee), I find the inconsistency in the naming of liftarms in LDraw to be quite frustrating and was wondering whether or not it would be worth setting a standard name class and sticking to it. Here's a sample list: Technic (...) (16 years ago, 20-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
(...) Thanks. 30172.dat and 47847.dat will be posted soon, 30135 a bit later. Philo (16 years ago, 8-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
(...) Philo, I added the submission dates to the chart. Pick it from the list. w. (16 years ago, 8-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
Hi Willy, (...) What about the mention "0 !HISTORY 2007-08-25 {The LEGO Universe Team} Original part shape" for these new parts? Should we change the date? Philo (16 years ago, 6-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
(...) I woudln't bother pushing this. LEGO is being very nice to the fan community by providing us parts in LDRAW DAT format. I'd leave it at that. Jeff (16 years ago, 23-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
(...) For sure it would be best to get a file format closer from the original design (.stl for example), to be able to tweak stl2dat parameters for better results. Or to create directly POV versions... Philo (16 years ago, 23-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
