 | | Re: Comments wanted: Plans for easier parts authoring
|
|
(...) So nice to hear that, and I actually care quite a lot! I have used Lego quite a lot myself to teach computer graphics. Not CAD as such, but 3D modeling, animation and programming. Swedish M Sc students have often grown up with a large pile of (...) (20 years ago, 7-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | RE: PT Browser: A client-side browser for the Parts List
|
|
Many thanks. If you need any help with it, just ask, and I'll try and reply with concise instructions. One of the biggest problems I find in writing instructions is what to include - too little, and you can't get started, too much and you drown in (...) (20 years ago, 7-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: PT Browser: A client-side browser for the Parts List
|
|
Dear William, I am surprised that none other has replied to this piece of work! Perhaps it is too difficult to understand how to even get it installed. However, I have succesfully got it to work quite easily. I am giving it a thorough look now and (...) (20 years ago, 7-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comments wanted: Plans for easier parts authoring
|
|
(...) Hi Stefan, While I think my opinion on this is well known, I'll answer your call for responses here.. I agree that AFOL don't "need" high-end tools for parts-authoring.. Any way to incorporate a graphical interface into the process would be a (...) (20 years ago, 6-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Comments wanted: Plans for easier parts authoring
|
|
(...) I just read this about the latest Blender release: "completely rewritten and upgraded mesh modeling" That looks promising. I'll definitely try it out! Stefan (replying to his own posts...) (20 years ago, 6-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comments wanted: Plans for easier parts authoring
|
|
(...) Indeed, thanks for reading! :) Blender is a good modeling and animation tool, but last time I checked I found the vertex and triangle tools unwieldy, so it was not very useful for detailed low-poly editing. I should check back on it, though, (...) (20 years ago, 6-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Comments wanted: Plans for easier parts authoring
|
|
(...) A while back i played around with blender, it's gone opensource in the meantime. (URL) don't know the current version but with the old blender i managed to get plaint text exports whom where very usable for post processing. I was playing (...) (20 years ago, 5-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Comments wanted: Plans for easier parts authoring
|
|
As some of you might have seen, I have been doing some programming lately to convert various 3D file formats to DAT format. This resulted in the MAX2DAT converter, which is useful but does not handle primitives, and is limited to the file formats (...) (20 years ago, 5-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: No mention of scale in file format doc
|
|
(...) Well, far be it from me to argue with Science. ;) Steve (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) Well, yeah. I guess so. I feel like they're *way* pushing the "brick with modification" envelope. OTOH, your suggestions are definitely better than leaving those two parts as the only "Castle" parts. Steve (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: No mention of scale in file format doc
|
|
(...) Thanks! I'll leave that article up indefinitely, in case the subject comes up again. (Funny how my work always comes into my Lego hobby. Or is it the other way around? I can never tell. I guess I'm just a Lego person.) Stefan (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: No mention of scale in file format doc
|
|
(...) I agree but Stefan gave a compelling argument for 1 LDU = 4 mm so I changed the draft proposal. -Orion (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: No mention of scale in file format doc
|
|
(...) No, Orion is correct -- for LDraw. By definition, LDraw parts have no gap. 1-stud-wide bricks are 20 LDU - exactly. We *really* don't want to get into a game of trying model real-world dimensions in great detail. That it, unless someone can (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: No mention of scale in file format doc
|
|
(...) I beg to differ. The width of a 1x1 brick is not the same as the spacing between two stud centres. Bricks have a small gap between them, whereas studs are very accurately placed on any brick with more than 1 stud. The LDU unit should be (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: No mention of scale in file format doc
|
|
(...) Well, yes, and no. The bricks are not nearly as precise as the molds, but the dimensional tolerances for parts must certainly be a lot tighter than the difference between 1/64" and 0.4 mm. That difference is almost a full percent, so there is (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) They're just modified plate & brick: 6072 Plate 7 x 7 with cutouts and castle crenelations 6066 Brick 4 x 8 x 2 & 1/3 with cutouts and castle crenalations -John Van (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) OK, so I exaggerated a little bit. ;-) Only reason it sticks in my mind is because of that one release where it and the 2x2 radar dish shared the same name. (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) And Lego may change the number of that 2x2 from 3003 to 53456343, but it'd still be a 3003 to us, right? (...) Yes, true. (...) LDraw numbers are designed to be unambiguous. And that unambiguity is enforced by the fact that we store our data (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) Exactly. (...) Yes. (...) I wouldn't. But we would have to work around that problem anyway. (...) Exactly. Play well, Jacob (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) Both. The default for CATEGORY is the first word from the part title. Most parts have no explicit CATEGORY. I believe in all the examples given by William, the default CATEGORY is in effect. (...) I expect we'd work on updating translations in (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
