 | | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I guess I just disagree with you there :) I think it's better to have a better contest, and perhaps lose a few entries of those who want to sell their models. The increased quality of the interface is worth it, imo. (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Precisely my point, and precisely why putting them on an uneven footing will diminsh (the number of) entries. Better to have a level playing field, one way or the other, and better to set that field to maximise the number of entries. (...) All (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) But entries that are displayed as picture only WILL, by definition, have a diminished effect. It's similar to the difference between seeing a picture of a model as opposed to holding it in your hand. Of course that the model taht allows me to (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) of course not. Prior to this thread being posted on lugnet. [snip] (...) Opinions voiced in a private discussion ARE irrelavent once the discussion goes public. If the owners of the opinions want to share them, they're welcome to do so (and (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I hope not. It's certainly not my overt intent! I think sharing's great, if you want to share. I just don't want to see authors put in a position where they are forced to share either to participate at all, or in order to be on an equal (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) It would seem like you are defending here your right to sell your models *over* the rights of others to share theirs. Granted, this only applies to a very specific instance (MOTM contest), not the community as a whole. But I still can't agree (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Well, more kudos to Orion for opening the discussion then, even if it got off-topic. I have not changed my views on the matter, but at the same I have certainly gained insight into the mindset of other community members. At the end of the day, (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) But not allowing it discriminates against larger or more detailed entries. Take a look at the December models. There's no way to see all the details of two of the models without the LDR file. You're just leveling the field in your favor (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I am not so keen on it, it sort of smacks of potential discrimination against entries that choose not to do so. If we are going for a level playing field let's get completely level. (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Well that wasn't just me. Steve and I had discussed it for some time and had wanted to move in that direction. The change actually got a bit of help from Michael Lachmann who asked, and Steve and I gave a thumbs up, then others followed suit. (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
--snip-- (...) Not completely true. Orion's original post was to get ideas/feedback on his proposed changes. In the end it will be up to him to decide how he sets up the MOTM rules. Why? Simple, this decision is not up to a committee! Case in point (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) How do you feel about requiring the LDR file in order to generate standardized pics, but keeping the publishing of the LDR file itself optional? Would that also prevent you from submitting? (...) I don't buy that analogy. It's not your (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Hr0Mxq.1qoL@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) understanding (...) discussions (...) to be (...) necessary. I too think this is an unreasonable restriction. It has been a while (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I was, and still am intending to do exactly this, enter Motm and sell instructions for the MOC. I hope to win MOTM and use the forum to generate publicity. I don't see any problem with this. My MOC is quite large and complicated and I've spent (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Scenes, I guess, as you would think of them now, but some (all?) of them may have been submitted prior to the MoTM/SoTM split. But I've got one in mind for MoTM right now, and I choose MoTM because I think it would be poorly served to be in a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) You're talking about a different medium. Not everyone has the 21 inch, high resolution monitor required to make complex or intricate models look good when rendered. The use of pictures meant to be displayed on a typical computor monitor tends (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Hmmm, now that you mention it, I do recall something of yours up for a vote. Did you submit a model, or just scenes? Did you ever submit as a model something you were selling? And hey, do we have archives of the old entries? (...) I wouldn't (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) It seems as though my first point was missed entirely. The presentation is as crucial to the model as the model itself. The first example I would like to use comes from my profession- design competitions. Rules for submissions in almost all (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Several, actually. (...) I think it is an issue, and worse, I think it highlights an underlying issue of larger import. In an ideal world the Steering Committee would either have given Orion authority to organize the contest as he sees fit, or (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Nah, the work is easily automated. -Orion (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I don't think it will fix much. There will still be nothing to prevent people from selling kits or high quality posters. Since this issue is only partially addressed by making the source public, I don't think changing the rules of the MOTM (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I think you're signing yourself up for a lot of work but it's a terrifically nifty idea! (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I would too, IF they weren't the original author. And making the dat public enables that sort of behaviour far too easily. Hence my aversion to it. On the other hand, if they were the author, I think it's perfectly fine. If your model is good (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Nothing. That doesn't make it right though. And as part of the proposed change (which I do like a lot, btw!), we have a chance to fix this as well. (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) What's preventing people from doing this now (for both contests)? -Orion (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Why? If they don't want to publish the DAT, they can still enter the Scene categrory, because that's all you get without the DAT file, one view of the model (AKA a scene). My personal favorite part of lugnet is clicking on the DAT links and (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) limit the submissions from those who are unwilling/unable to install the specified program on their machine. This is why I liked Larry's idea to submit the DAT code instead and to have the contest coordinator do the renders. This way, if the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) So you wouldn't have a problem with someone saying (on their e-shop) "buy the instructions to build this winner of the official Ldraw.org MOTM contest winner"? I would. (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) If the model has commercial ties before or during the contest then I might (note the word might) have a problem with the submission. In my opinion, the reasoning behind an author's decision to keep the source private is irrelevent and not the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) If you feel that POV rendering gives too many degrees of freedom, why not define MOTM as L3LAB, Ortographic, renderings. Then there's no discussion of landscape, sky, Anton Raves' parts, etc. etc. L3LAB rendering also shows the construction of (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Let's please make this explicitly clear: It is then all right to use the contest as a means to advertise a commercial model or a commercial product based on the model? This is a glaring pitfall if sources are not requested. I thought it would (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) To which post? Your post? (...) All the rest of the thread before your post is irrelevant? I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, you may want to consider a rewording to clarify. (...) I disagree. While they may not have been the decision (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I found this question somewhat surprising, frankly. (...) I'm hoping that it only appears to be the central issue because the rest of the proposal has met with general agreement and that if this issue can be resolved, it will be speedily (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Agreed. -Tim (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) The loss is the chance for us to see the creative effort of another and possibly be inspired by it. The fact that this has become the central issue of my proposed changes flabbergasts me. It takes absolutly no effort on our part to honor an (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree with Jacob. Also, the discussion prior to this post doesn't really matter - a decision wasn't made in that discussion, so what people who participated in it thought is really irrelevant. If someone chooses not to participate in the (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) OK, I'll accept that and agree that it's a goal of the contest. Going forward though, I think we're still suffering from not having formal organization in place, in an ideal world this proposal would have passed through the steering committee (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree with Larry about this issue. I consider imposing a restiction like this to be both excessively exculsionary and extremely petty. -Orion (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Well. We may have forgotten to write it down, but I remember it as one of the ideas, when we originally started MOTM (and I wrote the first two versions of the software for MOTM/SOTM). (...) It is kind of hard to arrive at consensus during (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I looked here: (URL) and here: (URL) I didn't see that as an explicitly stated goal. I may have missed it somewhere else though. (...) I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps slightly less than if they are. I think there are lots of learning (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC And Mirroring (LDS)
|
|
(...) Thanks Steve. :) (21 years ago, 29-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) OK - it's not a technique I use, but in an email conversation recently somebody convinced me that inverting the matrix would switch the winding. Now that I test it again I found I was mistaken. Chris (21 years ago, 28-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC And Mirroring (LDS)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tore Eriksson wrote: [snip] (...) Yes. Steve (21 years ago, 28-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee wrote: [snip] Thanks for writing this up, Chris! Your explanation was very good in all respects except for one small point: (...) Actually, negating the transformation matrix should not invert any object; and even if it (...) (21 years ago, 28-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
(...) I think ease or difficulty depends on which tools you use to author parts. I use LDAO as the editor with L3Lab for preview and find it reasonably easy. Others may wish to comment with reference to their favourite tools. To BFC an existing DAT (...) (21 years ago, 27-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | BFC And Mirroring (LDS)
|
|
As I am into a major revision of the LDS Compiler, I have stumbled upon the problem with mirroring and extruding and their effect on BFD winding. My question is: Is it correct to rewind the points if a polygon has been mirrored an odd number of (...) (21 years ago, 27-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | primer/tutorial on BFC?
|
|
Anyone out there willing to teach me how to certify a DAT file for backface culling (BFC)? Posting to LUGNet would be preferable, especially if you are providing images (visual aids are usually helpful when teaching a complicated subject). I recall (...) (21 years ago, 24-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Linetype/color question
|
|
(...) Hi Travis: Thanks for your input. LDview is a fine program, by the way. LDview, along with Lars' L3Lab, has been indispensible for me when designing complex parts and models. Thanks again for the info. Dave! (21 years ago, 24-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Linetype/color question
|
|
(...) Hi Orion: Thanks for the response! I don't mean to dispute your answer, but I have made dozens of clone parts in LEdit that use the color range 256-512 for linetypes 3 and 4. Granted, some of the colors appear a little different in LEdit than (...) (21 years ago, 24-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Linetype/color question
|
|
(...) LDraw/Ledit doesn't accept non type 1 line with colors 256-512. While there is nothing perventing you from making a model that has quads, triangles and lines with color 256-512, we enforce this rule for the Official Library in order to ensure (...) (21 years ago, 24-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Linetype/color question
|
|
(...) I don't know why the restriction exists, but I do believe it is enforced for parts in the parts library. At a guess, the restriction comes from the orginial LDraw program itself. I know that my own program (LDView) completely ignores this (...) (21 years ago, 23-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Linetype/color question
|
|
I was reading through bits of Ldraw.org and came upon this section: (URL) this note under "Colors." "Colors 256-512 are dithered colors. Only line type 1 is allowed to use colors 256-512." Is that correct? In other words, I can't make an irregular (...) (21 years ago, 23-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Numbers Report - 22 Dec. 2003
|
|
Stats for Unofficial Files 071 certified files. 235 files need admin review. 458 files need more votes. 520 have uncertified subfiles. 157 held files. Total Files: 1,441 Comparison with Prev. Report: 2003-12-22: 071 / 235 / 458 / 520 / 157 (1,441) (...) (21 years ago, 23-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: modeling monorail ramps (TrackDraw)
|
|
(...) ... (...) ... The solution I came up with is that a single button press on the Monorail toolbar adds both ramp halves to the layout. The pieces are individually selectable, though. If a layout designer wants to 'dead-end' a monorail track run (...) (21 years ago, 19-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: modeling monorail ramps (TrackDraw)
|
|
(...) The top and bottom ramp pieces are designed to fit together, they do NOT join up physically with any other of the monorail pieces. You may just as well design both together. Michel Magnan (21 years ago, 18-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report - 15 Dec. 2003
|
|
Sorry, not quite awake yet. Today's the fifteenth; Wednesday will be the seventeenth... :P ~~~ (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Numbers Report - 17 Dec. 2003
|
|
Stats for Unofficial Files 063 certified files. 238 files need admin review. 447 files need more votes. 522 have uncertified subfiles. 157 held files. Total Files: 1,457 Comparison with Prev. Report: 2003-12-17: 063 / 238 / 447 / 522 / 157 (1,457) (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker outages in next few days
|
|
(...) Things are progressing on 2003-03, but it will be another few days before I can make the downloads available. I have been conscious of getting the Parts Tracker up and running again whilst I finalise the release. This will contain 314 files, (...) (21 years ago, 15-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | [PT] Letter Bricks - Common Keyword?
|
|
(...) Hmm, yes, maybe it's best. But I'd really like to have them categorized, but otoh that means a LOT of work. IF we make this effort and categorize the blue series, I think we should settle with two variants: one small bold (disregard sans or (...) (21 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | [Parts Tracker] Security Change underway
|
|
Note to all Parts Tracker authors and reviewers: I have started changing the scripts to authenticate user privileges against your general ldraw.org login. So far, I've just updated the submit script. What this means is that you must be logged in to (...) (21 years ago, 12-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dev) !
|
