 | | Re: Adding part updates
|
|
(...) Hey, that's a good question. If anyone comes up with a verified method for adding a parts update an existing Ldraw folder on a mac, I'd like to incorporate it into this page. (URL) only covers a full parts install, and the section on mklist (...) (21 years ago, 14-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | Re: Adding part updates
|
|
(...) I'm not sure about specifics on the Mac, but I do know that the zip versions of the parts updates just get unzipped over the original files on a PC. When asked, I instruct Winzip to replace all duplicate files with the version from the zip, (...) (21 years ago, 14-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | Adding part updates
|
|
Is there a procedure for adding part updates to the parts library on a Mac? Has anyone figured out a way to automate it? I've noticed that the updates have folders within folders. Am I correct in guessing that I want to keep the contents of the old (...) (21 years ago, 14-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | Re: Inline POV code in official parts?
|
|
(...) That's a very heavy argument against EmbPOV. It would be a great thing if we could just have a very few basic features, say clipped by, pattern wrap and maybe one or two other and make it a generic syntax for alternative code. (...) Despite (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Black seems wrong in ldconfig.ldr
|
|
(...) I agree that something of that sort would be a good idea, but in the case of my metallic colors, I actually hand-tweaked the settings for each metallic color. They aren't all the same. This was done partially to differentiate between chrome (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Black seems wrong in ldconfig.ldr
|
|
(...) Why not use the optional MATERIAL bits from this old discussion (URL) come up with a modified ldconfig.ldr? Then implement some code in LDVIEW to enable your metallic lighting goodies when ldconfig.ldr contains the proper MATERIAL settings. (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Black seems wrong in ldconfig.ldr
|
|
(...) Given that ldconfig.ldr is part of the LDraw parts library, I was referring to the color reference on the LDraw.org site (noted in another message). However, it might make sense to use the colors above, since they came directly from Lego, and (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Black seems wrong in ldconfig.ldr
|
|
(I switched to FTX due to an unusually long link.) (...) I was referring to the one at ldraw.org (URL) (LDraw definitions at the bottom). I believe that the LDraw color definitions there came from some version of the LDraw FAQ. When I said (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Black seems wrong in ldconfig.ldr
|
|
(...) In fact the official LEGO colour chart mentioned here (URL) uses 27, 42, 52 for black. ROSCO (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Black seems wrong in ldconfig.ldr
|
|
(...) (er, which official color chart?) (...) Uh, Travis, it's *black*. It's *supposed* to be dark. People have questioned/complained that it's not 'true black' (ie, 0,0,0). You might be right about the origin of the 33 value, but I believe I was (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Black seems wrong in ldconfig.ldr
|
|
Sorry to immediately post a follow-up to my own post, but I just noticed that RubberBlack is defined with the same 33,33,33 color (not surprisingly), and I feel it needs to be updated as well. --Travis Cobbs (21 years ago, 12-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Black seems wrong in ldconfig.ldr
|
|
The ldconfig.ldr file currently being distributed with the parts library seems to have the wrong definition for black. It uses 33,33,33 as the RGB color, when the official color chart uses 51,51,51. Two things to note. First, 33,33,33 comes out (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Friction pins no friction?
|
|
It struck me as odd that the 3673 Technic Pin (no friction) and the 4459 Technic Pin with Friction looked identical. Why are they the same? Where is that friction? I feel there should be a line of connect primitives that clearly show this friction. (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I still like the idea of all the renderings being the same with the same camara positions and 1-3 special views suggested by the author. -Orion (21 years ago, 10-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(URL) anyone have *any* feedback on these ideas? Orion? Please let me know (even in a private e-mail if you want) if you think these are viable alternatives or if they're totally not worth considering! I'd appreciate any comment! Thanks, --Ryan (URL) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I think this is a moot point, but... The rule could be written so that a contributor must allow/license their work for publication on the contest website, for people to view/examine in relation to the contest, but not for further (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Need partnumbers and some partnames
|
|
(...) I think putting Motor Cutout in the keywords would work, if we can't reasonably fit it in the part title. (...) OK, I think Stop and Proceed are OK for the names. (...) So the light bulb can be physically removed from the complete part? But (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Here's the correct link: (URL) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Are they available on the net? According to the Wayback Machine (URL) were once at (URL) but that link is dead now. Don (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: December MOTM/SOTM Winners, January Voting Open
|
|
(...) Actually you can view the current month's contestants without being a member of the website. Simply go to the contests page at LDraw.org: (URL) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Yes adding unoffical parts into the .mpd file is doable and it is being polite to due this if you are using unoffical parts and making your model public. -AHui LDraw Help Desk (URL) (21 years ago, 7-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Sounds fair enough. I for one would be unlikely to pick through the .ldr file for every entrant anyway, but it would be cool to get a closer look at the winning entry. (...) This is true enough, although I still can't see why a rendering (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree entirely with Orion here. And I also think that making the LDR file available for the winning entry would be a great idea, but *only with the permission of the entrant.* I recommend it be strongly encouraged. (...) [snip] (...) I (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) The one problem I see here is that the contest allows unofficial parts (or unofficial versions of parts), which the coordinator might not have, and different submitters might want to use different versions of unofficial parts. The problem goes (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I got the point, but I'm not completely convinced. Anyhow, I really only suggested the LDRotM contest because I'm afraid the model sellers might be influential enough to eliminate even the *option* of publishing the LDR files in the MotM (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: December MOTM/SOTM Winners, January Voting Open
|
|
(...) Er... No soup for you, Dave! At least not the way it's currently implemented, I don't think. Why wouldn't you want to be able to vote, though? Do your civic duty, Dave! More seriously, sounds like a good suggestion, maybe Orion can fix it. (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: December MOTM/SOTM Winners, January Voting Open
|
|
(...) But what if I just want to look at the pretty pictures, without voting? Dave! (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: December MOTM/SOTM Winners, January Voting Open
|
|
(...) It is necessary to have a logon to the website in order to vote using the website functionality, which has been the mechanism in place since the contest was relaunched on the new site, which supports user logon and requires it for access to (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: December MOTM/SOTM Winners, January Voting Open
|
|
(...) Am I missing something, or is it necessary to be a member of LDraw.org in order simply to view the Models and/or Scenes of the Month? If so, how long has this been the case? Thanks for any info. Dave! (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) irrelevent. (...) Kevin (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Actually Don, I agree with all those points and am in favor of authors having the option to post their DAT/LDR/MPD files along with the images. My point is that within the scope of a completed model, having a contest on how the model is (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree. I like Orion's last proposal that allows for DAT/LDR/MPD to be available along with the views. If people don't want to share, and it diminishes their ability to win, that is their choice. A highly superior model without DAT/LDR/MPD (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Don, I thought about this for a while and have decided to retract my positive swing on this. The whole, dat required or not discussion is somewhat moot IMHO. For a given complete physical model there are only so many reasonable ways the model (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I could even submit LPub or LSynth source code...... this is getting rather silly. I think it needs to be restricted to DAT/MPD format files. Within that scope I really like the idea. Kevin (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) I agree whole heartedly with Orion on this one. Just because I submit a model for a contest, should not mean that I give up ownership of the model. I'm pretty sure that I would give away the DATs for any models that I submit, but I'd like that (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) The one thing that I would like to see, is that if the author agrees, have the DAT available during voting. I think that would allow better access to the models, and also motivate more people to actually try installing LDraw, which in turn can (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
With 64 messages in 4 days, the discussion regarding by proposed changes is good. I'm posting this message to refocus the discussion and tie all the fragments together. Here's a point by point breakdown of my proposal and some thoughts about the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) Hey, there's a nifty idea. Further, the FoTM (if structured to encourage explanation of techniques and so forth in the writeup) could end up being awarded to a file that didn't necssarily make a spectacular display but that did demonstrate (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) How about three contests: SotM, MotM and LDR file of the Month? (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
|
|
(...) That's unjustified (as in, you haven't justified that view, merely stated it) and dismissive and not really a good attitude to take, in my view. (...) um, 6 out of 17 (see (URL) ) isn't really "mostly". It might be a plurality but it's way (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
