 | | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) Works for me. -Tim (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Proposed solution for mirrored parts and studs
|
|
It's obvious that there is a lot of interest in the problem of mirrored studs, based on the volume of traffic in the ongoing thread. I have a proposed solution to the problem. My proposal is the creation of a small tool that automatically fixes a (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: PARTS.LST searching. (Was: Re: Part Fix 3959 Space Gun)
|
|
(...) Actually, I looked a bit further in the mklist.c code and it will READ up to 200 chars of part description, but then it truncates down to 64 chars before writing the part file. Apparently this is to be compatible with the old MAKELIST.EXE and (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Mirrored parts and studs
|
|
(...) Ouch--painful use of Dave! Oh, well. I knew my solution wasn't perfect, but it solved the immediate problem (while admittedly creating others). I'll still probably use it in my blasphemous clone.dats, if it's all the same to you folks. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Mirrored parts and studs
|
|
(...) Yes. But I'm not as willing as you are to see files changed, I guess (...) I think mirrored is more of a concern than misrotated, but that's just me. Would this meta work though? In other words, are there any parts that have studs *with logos* (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: PARTS.LST searching. (Was: Re: Part Fix 3959 Space Gun)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Don Heyse wrote: <snip> (...) The PT currently limits you to, I think, 64 characters in the part name. I don't know wht this limit is imposed. I just test LEDIT with a long name and it didn't care. --Orion (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | PARTS.LST searching. (Was: Re: Part Fix 3959 Space Gun)
|
|
(...) Right now it seems to be listed on the parts tracker as "Bar 1.5L with Handle and Female Stud". I just added a PARTS.LST search capability to ldglite: (URL) there's nothing in that name that would help me narrow the search to find the part. (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Mirrored parts and studs
|
|
(...) A fair point, but how often would that happen, realistically? Enough to be a problem? Even if one or two parts eventually turn up like that, why would the whole system have to be jettisoned for those few exceptions? (...) I'm not sure that (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Thank you for the nomination. I accept. (...) Kevin (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Thanks to all the parts developers
|
|
(...) I want to join to the thanks... As I have done a few (easy) parts, I know how tedious it can be... And thanks to the hawk-eyed part reviewers, who help to keep standards high ! Philo www.philohome.com (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Thanks to all the parts developers
|
|
(...) I would like to do so as well. It sounds like a lot of work. -Mike (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) I agree with Dan that all usable programs that involve non-trivial (read simple text editors) manipulation of DAT Code should qualify --Orion (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I second and would like to add -- Travis Cobbs -- Tore Eriksson w. (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) I'm not sure. While it's important, it should only rarly drive decisions on the file format. The whole reason you have end user programs is to make dealing with the dats easier. $0.02 Dan (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
Quoting Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com>: (...) I agree - Current rules say I qualifiy, and Steve will tell you, getting me to review is like pulling teeth! :) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) Yes, it makes sense. I think given this point it's best to keep it to people who have reviewed in the last two updates - what does everyone else think? (...) I'd be inclined to say end user, because they're designing for 'dumb' (or 'dumber') (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LSC Proposal 0.99a
|
|
(...) ... (...) Since the requirement says we want "active contributors", should this be clarified to say "5 reviews in each of the last two updates"? I don't think that I qualify to be on the LSC, just because I reviewed 20 files back in early (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I accept. (...) I'll second these two, and everyone else who's been nominated so far. :) Steve (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Yeah, the compartmentalized among us were asking I post LSC stuff in cad.dev.org.ldraw :-) (...) Consider it withdrawn. My mistake for not thinking ahead :-) I'd like to add a nomination for Larry Pieniazek - he was also involved in sorta the (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 1st LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
I would like to nominate: Michael Lachmann and Bernd Broich Paul (21 years ago, 3-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
