 | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I know. (...) Because learning more about what we can do with the LDraw format (IMO) is one of the aims of the contest. And if the files aren't published we don't learn much. Making sure we are allowed to publish the DAT/MPD files also means (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I think this is an unreasonable restriction. I'd be interested in understanding why this is something that should be insisted on. In the offline discussions prior to presenting this proposal and elsewhere in the thread, there seem to be a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree with your ambition. It makes good sense to let MOTM focus strictly on the models and let SOTM cover more broader aspects of presenting models. (...) Makes good sense. And I would prefer that we insist that the submissitted files can be (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree with this in spirit. Yes, bring the attention back to the models. However I do have some alternative ideas, or at least variations on the ideas presented. Initially I thought the best way would be to make the dat files available so one (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Models can be copyrighted for different reasons, like: 1. They are commissioned commercially 2. They are sold by the creator 3. They belong to a larger copyrighted work (i.e. a book) While I respect copyrights (it comes with the age, it (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I just wanted to add one more post in an attempt to clear up any confusion that may have been caused in this thread. What Andy says above is correct, and my earlier post indicating otherwise was incorrect. The two dimensional (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) All I have to add is a 'me too' to Tim's thought. I'll never pay for a copyrighted .dat file but that doesn't mean that people don't have the right to keep the files they make private. Not to sidetrack further, but the matter becomes nastily (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
--snip-- (...) BEFORE this topic went public, there was discussion (within LDraw) about submitions from indiviudals that might later on want to make the models commercially avaliable. By submitting their LDraw files and making them public their (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I was thinking, what if someone submitted a model team style MOC or an even larger Technic MOC, say a truck and they had added a very detailed crane behind the cab, from the rear view it could end up quite small and possibly obscured by the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree (strongly) with Orion here. While I'd love to have copies of other people's LDraw files when voting for the contest, ultimately the decision to make the source of a model public should remain up to the author. -Tim (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Agreed. -Tim (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I still would like to respect the author's choice not to have the raw DAT code posted, it is after all his/her property. -Orion (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I think this analogy is not so great. The reason why we can't take things home from a museum is that things there are unique and in a museum more people can come see it. In the virtual world it's rather the other way around: things are not (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) Hmmm, very good point. I don't like treating specific object specially, but I don't see any way around it. I played around with the stud and with a 'solid' cylinder object, I couldn't find a way to get L3Lab's BFC handling to fail. Steve (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) While I was at work, I thought of another great reason to switch to DAT code enties: instructions on how to build the model can be made available if the auther allows. There are quite a few MOTM entries that I'd love to build but can't because (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) It not so much that models are winning because they're rendered better, it's that I feel some entries are being overlooked because they look "worse". To me, this seems unfair to the beginner who, while having great modelling ideas, hasn't yet (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) While I understand the desire to have all models publicly available, I respect the authors desire to keep his/her efforts out of the public domain. A great analogy of this is that you can go a museum and look at an exhibit, you can even take (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
hello all, My compliments to Orion and his efforts to make the MOTM contest more fair. But I do wonder why there is a need for this. Have there been doubtful submissions in the past? My biggest puzzle however is the copyight issue. Steve, in reply (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) If you want to focus on presentation, then Scene is the contest for you, that's the idea behind this idea. Leveling the playing field via automation encourages everyone to focus on the model. We DON'T want someone to win because they had (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) clip (...) I can understand your concern as to shift the focus more towards the modeling side of the process, yet am concerned that it seems as if the rendering process will be come almost an afterthought if your suggestions are followed. (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) Actually, I *think* it's the new ATA controller card I installed, and LDView was just an innocent bystander. However, since LDView doesn't do BFC, I guess I didn't miss anything. (...) Yes, you could use INVERTNEXT, but that introduces (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Just to point out - this discussion is only about the Model of the Month. The Scene of the Month contest would not be change. This would help sharpen focus of MOTM on the actual LDraw model, and SOTM would focus on composition, rendering (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) One minor thing. L3P's default view that most people are used to is equivalent to -cg30,45,0. I really think the latitude of 30 is preferable to the latitude of 45 for most models. --Travis Cobbs (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
After formal running the MOTM contest for a month, I've becomed concerned with the fairness of the contest. In response to my concerns, I'd like to make the following changes to the rules for MOTM in order to level the playing field. - All (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) You're right; I'm wrong. I'm still having a hard time visualizing it, but your stud example below convinced me that negating the one value in the matrix will indeed flip a 2D primitive like a disk, and this is the expected behavior. In fact, (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) I do this all the time, too. Just a minus sign in stead of 'BFC INVERTNEXT' each time can save some diskspace, which I've been told is something to go for, too. Niels (21 years ago, 3-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC? [DAT]
|
|
(...) I think it works just fine. L3Lab correctly detects that the matrix is mirroring, see View/Tree View... and click the BFC radio button, it should say INVERT in front of the line. When we discussed the BFC business the general assumption was (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) If this is the case then we need to go back through all the BFC'd parts and find instances of this type of matrix. Since L3Lab allows inverting the sign of the Y component and it's currently the only program to easily check for correct (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) L3Lab supports BFC INVERTNEXT. /Tore (21 years ago, 3-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC? [DAT]
|
|
(...) I do agree that it isn't supposed to work, because the BFC spec very carefully states that any polygons drawn with an aggregate matrix that causes mirroring must be flipped back. (...) I'm sorry that LDView is crashing your system, but it (...) (21 years ago, 3-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Need partnumbers and some partnames
|
|
(...) There are trainbases with and without motorcutouts, some with the same size. That's why I suggested to add the cutout to the name. Also for seeking those parts as one of them is just a plate. Perhaps adding Motorcutout as a keyword can help to (...) (21 years ago, 31-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Need partnumbers and some partnames
|
|
(...) x389.dat Technic Brick 1 x 2 with Hole and Thin Top x290.dat Magnet Holder for Train Base 6 x 22 Type I x303.dat Train Base 6 x 22 with Cutout Type I x303c01.dat Train Base 6 x 22 with Cutout Type I with Magnets (Complete) x304c01.dat ~Train (...) (21 years ago, 31-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee wrote: [snip] One other thing: before you update a file for BFC, be sure there are no serious L3P errors -- vertex order is the big problem, but you should also take care of non-coplanar quads and singular matrices as (...) (21 years ago, 31-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC? [DAT]
|
|
(...) That shouldn't work -- the rendering program should detect that you've mirrored the object, and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately, I see that it does 'work' in L3Lab. LDView is crashing my system right now, so I couldn't check it. What you (...) (21 years ago, 31-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Numbers Report - 30 Dec 2003
|
|
Section Totals 118 certified files. 223 files need admin review. 519 files need more votes. 500 have uncertified subfiles. 151 held files. Total Files: 1,511 Comparison with Prev. Report: 2003-12-30: 118 / 223 / 519 / 500 / 151 (1,511) 2003-12-22: (...) (21 years ago, 30-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) I started parts authoring without knowing about BFC. When I read something about BFC-ing here on lugnet, I started to dig myself into it, reading documentation (from www.ldraw.org), trying things out and now I know enough about it. I only (...) (21 years ago, 30-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) I use LDDP and L3Lab with "Poll to L3Lab & LDview" + "Poll to selected line only" turned on. going through the code with CRTL+W (orion please don't forget my special request) rewinding what's needed. w. (21 years ago, 30-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC? [DAT]
|
|
(...) For the two-dimensional primitives (disc, ndis, ring, chrd) you can do the following: Say you have a disc in the x-z plane, like: 1 16 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 4-4disc.dat If this has the wrong BFC winding, you can just flip (mirror) the (...) (21 years ago, 30-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) I use Notepad (NOTEPAD.EXE), until the DAT file gets too huge, whereupon I use WordPad (WORDPAD.EXE) to continue editing the file. I use a calculator and scratch paper (to do a rough sketch and to keep notes of important locations). Whenever I (...) (21 years ago, 30-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Need partnumbers and some partnames
|
|
Now the parts update 2003-03 is released, I started to make some parts I have already created ready for upload to the parts tracker. I need partnumbers for the following parts. I also want to know if the partnames are correct. * Technic Brick 1 x 2 (...) (21 years ago, 29-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
