 | | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I don't want to specify that some parameters are order-specific, and others aren't. I'd rather they are all one way or the other. Goes back to easier 'correct' parsing. However, I'm sure the entries in ldconfig.ldr will always have their tags (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, the spec says just the opposite, that tags (keywords) are not case-sensitive: (...) That seems reasonable. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, I've most recently used dithering to simulate chrome/metal/metallic parts. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) OK, I'm alright with that. (...) If that's a needed parameter, I'd rather have it follow the METALLIC keyword. (...) I'm ok with that, too. Is '50%' really an adequate description? There can be many brush patterns... Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) There had been discussion previously about differentiating true comments from meta-statements. The LSC agreed that it seems like a good idea to start prefixing meta-keywords with a punctuation mark, and we chose !. And !COLOUR is shorter than (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, I was considering the possibility of (patterned) parts including custom color definitions, which would only apply to that part. (...) That's a good question. Think about this: what if file A also has some surfaces hard-coded to color (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) I don't think we could list which companies to watch out for, and which not to, and be comprehensive. That's why there's a general removal clause in 6.04 to enable the members to remove a SteerCo member in cases of documented, serious (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
(...) What about MegaBloks, or any other company that may have an interest? Why pointing the finger on TLC only? Why not have a more general clause about conflict of interest? -- Anders Isaksson, Sweden BlockCAD: (2 URLs) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Thanks for your confidence. Based on my experience in the company so far, working relationships I have with Community Development people, and experience in the hobby in general, I do not believe the pressure you hypothesize about is likely to (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
|
|
Thanks to everyone who has been participating in the bylaws discussion. These are important issues, and in my view the opinions put forth have been by and large well thought out and productive. I think we've covered the lion's share of the possible (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I see. I wasn't clear on what role the LSC has. I've gone back over the posts dealing with that subject and understand it better now. Nevertheless, I still think it was a valid question. (...) Not really. It's less to do with the way I worded (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Perfectly. Thanks. As I said originally, I don't doubt your integrity or devotion to ldraw.org, TLC employee or not. I was just hypothesising to myself about what a conflict of interest might entail and thinking, perhaps unreasonably, that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Apologies for not making the timeframe - they're *just* about ready and they should be ready to go tomorrow. -Tim (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I do apologise if I misinterpreted your words, but I would suggest that my interpretation is an extremely reasonable one given the word choices you used. (...) I would think not, but I look to the steering committee to do a lot more than make (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Hi Allister - Thanks for that clarification. Actually, I was at a momentary loss for how to approach the answer, but now after thinking it through I have something to say. I would hope that whoever is elected to the Steering Committee would (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) I suggested nothing. I was merely asking a question. Can you just answer it without reading motives into it that don't exist? Is it really necessary to be a member of the steering committee in order for suggestions on the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I concur. :) I haven't been following this thread at all up until now, but Jake's post caught my eye. And I agree with what he said - only I want to go a little further. Couldn't anybody that even has association with TLC possibly have a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Conflicts of Interest
|
|
(...) All: While the goal of avoiding conflicts of interest is a laudable one, in practice large numbers of committees operate with members who have them. It is far more important that potential conflicts be disclosed as they crop up. If the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I don't see this discussion as about Tim at all, except as a test case. As I've said before, he's a handy metric. Any rule that excludes him (based on his current employment situation) is wrong, and worse, it is in my view bad for the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I for one certainly don't doubt your devotion to the hobby, nor do I doubt that you will do anything but behave with the utmost integrity as a member of the committee. However, despite this it does concern me that there is nonetheless a (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) All, I hope you don't mind if I chime in on the discussion. I just caught up on the thread, and there are a lot of very good things being tossed around. Personally, I tend to like the idea of Larry's to exclude any mention of LEGO employee (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) He's high enough up (and his job description is focused in such a critical direction) that I think almost everyone would agree that there was a conflict of interest in his case. LEGO is his career now, after all. (...) The problem with special (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree with this. It's a tough issue, but people working for Lego (in any capacity) will tend do things, say things, or NOT say things to keep that paycheck coming. If more bad decisions like the color change force Lego into bankrupcy, or (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Why not turn the clause 180 degrees? If you get your paycheck from Lego, you can only be eligible after community discussion/approval? I suppose being payed by MegaBloks, or any other clone maker would need the same treatment. -- Anders (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) No, I do not think we all agree that. (...) Yes, someone does so disagree. In fact I'd go farther, I think most of us do disagree, at least for the case of people that have little or no practical influence within LEGO (people who work in (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree there _might_ be a conflict. I don't believe it would be true in every case. I have suggestions for generic ways of allowing exceptions [1] and will consolidate them and post them later today. -Tim [1] IMO the exception process should (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) ... (...) So let's separate the issues. I think we all agree that a LEGO employee should not be in the SC (if only for the appearance of impropriety). If you want to make a special case for Tim, or make a more generic way of allowing (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I think the views are so different that it is unlikely that we can reach a consensus. There may be a majority for either of the two opinions, but I doubt it will be possible general agreement about what is the right solution. (...) Uhm. Right. (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) While I agree that someone in that situation might have such a conflict of interest, then again,they might not. It's pretty far fetched to see how someone in Tim's position could possibly have any conflict of interest (except in a good way for (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) This is the best I can come up with: Any person who works in a retail outlet (including kiosks, mall stores, and theme park centers) from the store manager position down or any worker in manufacturing, shipping, or goundskeeping/housekeeping (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I strongly object to a blanket exclusion. I do not believe every position would pose a conflict of interest. Here is a thought: What about instead of having an exclusionary clause, require that if someone is employed by TLC, there be (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Ok, but at what point does a conflict of interect exist? Do we really need to exclude every worker simply because membership from a small subset poses a conflict of interest? -Orion (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
Quoting Dan Boger <dan@peeron.com>: (...) I agree. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I object, for the record. I think the point isn't if someone can influence TLC policy, but if they can influence LDraw's policy. In my optinion, if you get a paycheck from LEGO, you might have a conflict of interest. (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) My second reply to this post - this time I'm addressing the issue from a personal perspective, rather than the less partial process-oriented viewpoint in my previous post. I am concerned that a blanket provision to ban TLC employees will (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) [...] (...) Fair enough. (...) My position is this - there are certian levels of employment in an organization that don't allow influence over company policy, and those levels of employees should not be excluded from eligibility to be elected (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) it’s not the point if Tim has/has not a conflict of interest or is/is not eligible to be a Steering Committee Officer. I posted the comment just to show that the membership of LEGO employees in fan clubs is an issue and it has to be solved (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I wouldn't expect that to conflict with any responsibilities you might get on the LDraw.org board. (...) Agreed. But it seemed - from Willy's message - like we might run into trouble with the views of a majority of the European LEGO fans using (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I'm a sales associate at a Brand Retail store, part-time. (...) I don't see a conflict with my current job description. Like Larry, I say let it be a campaign issue. That seems to me the simplest solution. -Tim (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) That (both the itlug and Dan's solutions) is definitely a nice and easy solution. The problem here is that Tim would like to keep his job at LEGO and have a go at being on the LDraw.org steering committee. Since I don't know what Tim's (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Bylaws Draft v.2
|
|
This is a re-post of the bylaws draft, omitting paragraph 3 of Section 6.02, per the discussion here: (URL). This copy of the draft supercedes the draft this message is in reply to. If there are any modifications to the draft before it goes to a (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Dual Winners for LDraw.org's January Model Of The Month, February Voting Open
|
|
Yes, that's right, there is a tie for January Model of the Month. The competition was fierce and we came within 1 vote of a tie in the SOTM and missed a 3 way win in the MOTM by 1 vote as well. Congratulations to the winners: MOTM, Jorgen Andersson, (...) (21 years ago, 1-Feb-04, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !!
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) part-time, student, non-career, professional, careerist ,steering committee, fellow member, active member ... there is a german saying: den wald vor lauter bäumen nicht sehen (not spotting the forest because of too many trees ;-) I remember (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I can go with this solution also. Headed off to work for now, but I'll be back with this thread sometime this weekend to re-post the drafts. Ratification will take place once technical concerns have been addressed. -Tim (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PPARTS (Was: Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files)
|
|
(...) Me, too. This also solves an issue for having .dat files not too detailed, like the rounded metal parts on 12V train conductor parts. Now the .dat files can contain a square box, which is fast drawn in construction programs and the .inc files (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) I wouldn't call it radical (I thought about it too). I think it is the most practical solution. Play well, Jacob (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) We seem to be making something convoluted in this area no matter what we do... Here's a radical idea... drop the clause completely. If someone stands for election that has a conflict of interest that would hinder their carrying out their (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) If we write in a mechanism for determining the eligibility of candidates I agree (see my response to Ross). -Tim (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Well, I've mulled over in my head the possibility of another body to determine eligibility to the StC - but, it goes against my gut as adding too much bureaucracy to the org. Perhaps the bylaws should allow for a public discussion on a (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PPARTS (Was: Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files)
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I think it's a good idea! The only thing I think needs looking at is the naming - should it be dedicated to L3P or to the renderer, eg: RENDERPARTS\POVRAY RENDERPARTS\BRYCE etc. That way, people can provide their own program to do (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PPARTS (Was: Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files)
|
|
I Like it :) It is a great solution to a sticky problem. -Chuck (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I think the last sentence should be omitted as fluff. For example, the foreman of the molding plant in Billund is clearly eligible under the definition of "professional employee", as is a LEGOLAND Master Builder and the lower-level (or all?) (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) That reads better to me. (...) Well maybe we need such a mechanism anyway, in case other unknown conflicts or questions arise in future? ROSCO (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Thanks for the support, Larry! (...) OK, lets settle on a wording then. It should appear in the bylaws, because the bylaws are written to be difficult to change, where defining in the P&P would make the definition of 'professional' easy to (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Matrix mirroring question
|
|
(...) Thanks. I implemented it that way, and it seems to be working so far, so I believe that everything is fine. (...) You're too right. Unfortunately, I can go for a while and do a really good job of commenting, and then I'll slack off for one (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
I have these comments: 1) Why not use COLOURDEF in stead of introducing the'!' ? 2) CHROME | METALLIC | RUBBER seem to me like materials. Are they just shortcuts for convenience? 3) It should be possible to specify RGB color in decimal. Either r,g,b (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | L3PPARTS (Was: Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files)
|
|
(...) Yeah, well, it's been three years since the last L3P release, so I guess it's about time for another :-) The current v1.3 release has proven to be quite stable, so I have just collected and implemented a list of wishes from various users. (...) (21 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Matrix mirroring question
|
|
(...) Since det(AB)=det(A)det(B) I don't think it matters whether you check the determinant (mirroring) at each level or the final level. Too bad you didn't add a comment in your old code :-) I often beat myself for not adding more elaborate (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree with Tim here. I think there is ambiguity and I would like it removed but I do not want Tim to be barred from standing for election as a result of removing it. The issue here is that of conflict of interest. While I think Jake McKee is (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) No, the point is to make a distinction between employees who have influence on strategy decisions within the company, and low-level employees who do not. Example, I currently work part time at a LEGO store, while attending school. I'm not (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Jacob said: "No professional employee of The LEGO? Company or any affiliated or subsidiary company shall be eligible to be a Steering Committee Officer." Is the ambiguity in the word "professional"? Ok, so if we say "No employee of TLC..." (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) The only change made between the last posting of the document to the mail list and the posting here was in the clause Jacob addressed. Jacob's edits still leave some ambiguity - is that what we want? If in the future there is a candidate who's (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I agree with Dan --Ryan (URL) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) When I first read, this, it seemed reasonable, but probably difficult to implement in a renderer. The more I think about it, though, the more I think the difficulty outweighs the niceness. Specifically, I think it would be a royal pain to (...) (21 years ago, 28-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) this is exactly what I was hoping for. w. (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: * LDraw Design Pad (LDDP) 1.53 released *
|
|
(...) F12, F12, F12, F12, .... ;-)))...))), w. (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) With the change Jacob was proposing, assuming there are no other changes from the document we discussed before you posted, I have no problems with the document. Are there any other changes from the original document? (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) I can't find anything I don't like about the Bylaws. I support ratification. -Orion (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
|
|
(...) Its been just over a week since these documents were posted. I saw one suggested change (Jacob), and no other objections to the documents as they are written. Has everyone had the chance to read through these and comment on them? I am sensing (...) (21 years ago, 27-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: * LDraw Design Pad (LDDP) 1.53 released *
|
|
(...) Thanks Ross. I can't believe I forgot to post a URL. -Orion (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: * LDraw Design Pad (LDDP) 1.53 released *
|
|
(...) Most of us know where to get it by now, but for the noobs: (URL) (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | * LDraw Design Pad (LDDP) 1.53 released *
|
|
LDDesignPad (LDDP) is a tool for editing and handling LDraw files in a very comfortable way. Features are: -Fully customizable editor with syntax highlighting -Open multiple files at the same time -Unlimited Undo/Redo -Use/define codesnippets (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.announce)
|
| |
| | Interesting BFC finding
|
|
Well, I've finished an initially working implementation of BFC in my next-gen LDView code tree, and discovered that on my particular video card, BFC actually slows the rendering down. A test model renders at about 50 FPS with BFC handling disabled, (...) (21 years ago, 24-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) And now the archive is public (Thanks, Dan!). See the mailing-group list at the bottom of the page at (URL) (Thanks Orion for making the list!) Steve (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I could go for that. Simpler is better! Of course that means the METALLIC (or PEARLY) tag needs an argument to define the color of the embedded bits. If you want it to be the same color as the substrate, just use the same color code. Don (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I've been keeping clear on the dither issue so far, because I didn't have a strong opinion one way or another. However, the more I think about it, the more I think we're not seeing the forest through the trees. Because of this, I vote we (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I would prefer that spaces not be allowed in the color name as well. However, the spec does say that all the keywords are case sensitive (must be all caps), and I believe the original suggestion was that keywords by themselves with spaces (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I realize many current ldraw rendering programs use a stipple pattern to render transparent surfaces. I do it in ldglite because I'm too lazy to do the sorting required to use alpha blending. However, I don't really want the specs to dictate (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) [snippety] (...) [doo-dah] (...) I was thinking no space. So far, we've avoided wrapping literals in quotes in LDraw (with only occasional trouble). I'd like to keep avoiding quotes. [snippety-ay] (...) Good question. We hadn't thought about (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) But what if Lego prints an opaque dithered pattern on a transparent brick? I think the ALPHA is more versatile if only applied to the VALUE color. You can still get an alpha dither color by using a color code for d which points to a color with (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I don't think so. What if CODE is part of the color name? I can't think of a quick example for that, but other key words are easy. AlphaTeamRed, BlueChrome... I'll support color names with no space characters, and I'll consider supporting (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
(...) Well put! (...) Typically if there is no explicit bar, the interpretation is that multiple terms are OK. That could be added if it's really unclear. As to the term length, ILTCO went with 2 year terms for the executive committee for reasons (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
I think this is a good thing and would really turn LDraw into a machine that gets more things done. I've been heavily involved with Mac OS X Labs Org ((URL) for the last year. The steering committee for that group has had weekly conference calls and (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
I put my reply at the top on purpose... I think we're all agreed on the intent but I'm not sure we have the wording nailed. "professional" is a harder word to define and agree on the definition of, than "student" or "part-time"... So while I'm OK (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Disregard the NAME suggestion. I'm brain dead today. -Orion (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) How about NAME? (...) I don't see a problem with this. Steve or Jacob? -Orion (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I won't make any guarantees, but there's a reasonably high probability that I won't even try to support the above, even if it's what the spec says in the end. It's too much of a pain. Additionally, it disallows further expansion of the colour (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) HTML uses # (...) The name should be the characters after the !COLOR keyword and before the next keyword. The only contraint I can think of is that is not be one of the other keywords. (...) ALPHA should apply to the VALUE color and the color (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I prefer the currently used 0x prefix, but I guess if you picked # to match other file formats in use by ldraw users then I can live with it. I forget, does POV or HTML use # for the hex prefix? (...) No spaces in the name? Alpha-numeric only? (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
(...) Your reasoning is sound and your edits seem reasonable to me at first read. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a part-time retail employee of the LEGO Company, and a full-time student. I'm not involved in any strategy decisions as a part (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Draft
|
|
(...) The text generally looks good, but ... (...) [...] (...) This distinguishing between part-time and full-time employees seems very artificial to me in this context. I think that all the organisations that I have been employed by here in Europe (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 81 million points
|
|
(...) I forgot to mention. I didn't try fly-through mode, but wouldn't expect it to be very usable at 1 frame per second. --Travis (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: 81 million points
|
|
(...) My system is a 2.4GHz P4 with 1GB RAM. However, according to the Windows XP task manager, LDView was only using about 125 megs when the model was loaded with normal-res studs. (This compares very favorable with the current LDView release that (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: 81 million points
|
|
(...) Wow. That must be amazing in fly-thru mode. I'm also curious. What sort of CPU and how much memory do you have, and how much of that was in use by the LDVIEW? (...) I bet you have to get all your display list(s) and vertex arrays into the (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Bram's LDraw and LEdit Tutorial
|
|
(...) I have a copy. Let me know if you still need it and I can email it to you. I still point to the LEDIT portion of this tutorial in the ldglite instructions so I'd like to see this back on the internet somewhere as soon as possible. Don (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Bram's LDraw and LEdit Tutorial
|
|
(...) Name: ldrawtutorial.zip Size: ~410K -Orion (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Color codes will be defined in decimal notation and the 24-bit RGB will be in Hex. -Orion (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) RGB is actually 3 numbers - I'd suggest something like RGB(r,g,b) where r g & b can be decimal or hex as per other numbers. ROSCO (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Bram's LDraw and LEdit Tutorial
|
|
(...) What would the name of the file be and how big is it approx.? Then I can browse through my 6 year old collection of "Download CD's..." :-) Jaco (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 81 million points
|
|
I normally don't make posts like this, but I thought the numbers involved deserved a post. Just out of curiosity, I stuck a counter in my development LDView code to count the number of points being drawn. I loaded up the copy I have of town.dat (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
