|
|
 | | ...large project anyone?
|
| --SNIP-- (...) I'm going to go a bit more general here so this is an answer to both parent and grandparent and probably other relatives too. -- Why does one person need to do the whole thing? We have a wealth of skills and experience in the Lego CAD (...) (19 years ago, 18-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: LSC - request for defining a WORKING connection database standard
|
| (...) nod, yes. (...) Add to this the fact that to get a working connection-enabled tool, you need start with (or at least develop along the way) a working GUI-based editing tool. That really narrows the field of potential (...) (19 years ago, 18-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: LSC - request for defining a WORKING connection database standard
|
| (...) Hi Willy, I think "working" needs a tool. 1. there is a tool 2. there is a developping database There is no chicken-egg problem: the tool always precedes the database. Would you model parts without MLCad, LeoCad or LDraw? I doubt anybody (...) (19 years ago, 18-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: LSC - request for defining a WORKING connection database standard
|
| (...) Note that Rosco already did take a crack at a few, including generating some images for them, and in doing so, found a problem in one I created, and caused me to decide to add fields to the connectionTypeBox, which is goodness. Thanks! (...) I (...) (19 years ago, 18-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: LSC - request for defining a WORKING connection database standard
|
| (...) While a connection database could be helpful, I just cant help thinking that a relationship/constrain system like solidworks and Pro/Engineer use could acheive a lot more. It could certainly be a start, then simplified - so the CAD (...) (19 years ago, 18-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
|
