 | | Re: LDraw.org MOTM/SOTM Relaunch
|
|
(...) Yep, looks good. I did notice that the January 2000 MOTM entry has a broken link for its actual image while browsing, but all the others I looked at worked fine. --Travis (19 years ago, 29-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org MOTM/SOTM Relaunch
|
|
(...) Yeah, I think so as well. I had a problems with this on other similar pages. (...) Yes, it was first implemented for the March 2004 contest. (...) The different views are for the contest ballot only. Once an entry wins, I chase one view and (...) (19 years ago, 29-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org MOTM/SOTM Relaunch
|
|
I get the same error when I try to click on the voting page: (URL) It might dissapear when some entries are added... Btw, the guidelines of MOTM say that we should send in ldr, mpd or dats, and you will render them from three different angles.. Is (...) (19 years ago, 29-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org MOTM/SOTM Relaunch
|
|
(...) You found a bug in my code (not unexpected at all considering the size of the module). I've applied a workaround and everything should be visible now. -Orion (19 years ago, 28-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org MOTM/SOTM Relaunch
|
|
(...) site decorations) with this in it when I click on the most recent winners, and two columns of this when I search past winners. I'm logged into my ldraw.org account when this happens. --Travis (19 years ago, 28-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org MOTM/SOTM Relaunch
|
|
I'm pleased to announce the relaunch of LDraw.org's MOTM/SOTM contest. After writing a few thousand lines of code, the core functionality for the new contest and voting module finished. There's not a whole lot different visually but the archive (...) (19 years ago, 28-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.announce) !
|
| |
| | Re: Ldraw to Bricklink shopping list converter
|
|
(...) Very cool. I like to see MPD support, if possible. -Orion (19 years ago, 26-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Ldraw to Bricklink shopping list converter
|
|
Hi, want to quickly search Bricklink for parts in your Ldraw creation? check (URL): just upload your Ldraw file, and you'll get a complete list of links to Bricklink search pages. Let me know how you like this tool, and make sure you try the MLCad (...) (19 years ago, 26-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org MOTM Status
|
|
It's been a while since the MOTM contest has been run and I feel that I owe an explanation to those who support me and LDraw.org. As some of you may know, I'm enlisted in the US Navy. Due to a combination of work schedule change, the planning and (...) (19 years ago, 23-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
--SNIP-- (...) IMO the best solution would be to have a magic number at the start of the parts. eg. 0 LDP or something. That way the 'partness' of each part would be quicly verified merely be reading the first five bytes of the file regardless of (...) (19 years ago, 16-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) Surely the extension is entirely to identify the type of file, otherwise they would be irrelevant? While I understand that .dat is a widely used extension it would be foolish if any change was to .ldr (for parts), another extension would make (...) (19 years ago, 16-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) I think Tim meant LDraw files distinctive from other programs' .DAT files. Also from (URL) is problematic because its an ambiguous file format, many different programs use it. To identify more with LDraw, we chose LDR." Anyway, as Travis (...) (19 years ago, 16-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Scorpion
|
|
(...) I just met with Chris Dee who is here in New Jersey on a biz trip. He just showed me his render of the Scorpion! I am so impressed! There is hardly another part as hard to make as the Scorpion. He did a fine job. Thank you so much. Lego Fans (...) (19 years ago, 16-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) What can I say? Tim has always been focused sharply on models. Although he used "model" extensively throughout that post, any implication of having separate definitions of "part" vs "model" as file-types is inaccurate. (...) That was entirely (...) (19 years ago, 15-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) this is what I did in the end. nontheless I consider this a bug worth reporting and subsequently sort out the ldr-dat mess we are currently in ;-) w. (19 years ago, 15-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss wrote: [snip-snap] (...) hmm ... I always understod .ldr as scene file and .dat just for parts. at least this was what I thought reding from tim's post back in 2001: (URL) extension change is just that. Nothing changes (...) (19 years ago, 15-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) Yes, I would be great. But while it doesn't distinguish, we have to deal with it. I think the naming convention we had had before the .ldr extension, with officicial models named m926.dat and so on, solves this problem. So I suggest you name (...) (19 years ago, 15-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) Getting back to the problem at hand, yes I do think this is a bug in L3P, the line specifically says include 926.ldr. Maybe L3P should include the extension as part of the inc file name unless it is .DAT? Of course that will break if the parts (...) (19 years ago, 15-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) I read Steve's email as saying that they shouldn't and that the extension doesn't matter but IMO it does. Rereading it, it sounds like the extension does matter but that it shouldn't be used to identify the type of file which I agree with. /me (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO
|
|
(...) I don't think L3P pays any attention to parts.lst. To be honest, I don't think that it should. It's not an editor that's expected to give you a list of parts available for use. (And to be honest, I think that parts.lst is a generally bad idea, (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
