 | | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) My light is a directional light pointing in exactly the same direction as the camera. In LDView 3.1, you can actually override this with an undocumented command line option. I hope to have light direction (single directional light) as a new (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) Yeah, your default settings tend to hide certain surface flaws. Your light source (where is it by the way?) and smooth shading are as effective as dim lighting and heavy makeup. Perhaps not the best thing for a parts designer to be using. But (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I'm not sure about the exact text but id state derived works as "containing the original file or visual representation/rendering of..." This happily excludes models (except where they include unofficial parts), but includes all renders of both (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) I have to wonder if I'm partially to blame. Perhaps the part author was using LDView (thumbnail is linked to bigger image, generated by LDView): (URL) Everything looks great there. --Travis (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) I'm wondering if something can't be done for general fits between two or three parabolas (perhaps I'm best to start with one parabolas and two lines). I'm trying to think of things but unfortunately geometry is my weakest branch of (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) If you fix that one, perhaps you can take up the challenge of (URL) the wedge brick>. I don't think we ever solved that one properly for ldraw. Enjoy, Don (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) Hi Don, That problem has bugged me for a while but I didn't realise there was such a simple solution to it. I imagine that something similar can be done where both edges are curves by setting up shells along the double curves. Now I'm off the (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) I like the ship, and especially that you've done it up in LDraw on the Mac. Cool. I'll have to leave any other comments to the starwars and building experts though. What I really like about that particular cad picture is the way it highlights (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) There is one aspect that I am a little worried about and it deals with unofficial files... we can make it clear what a model file is (references to parts only) but then we have the problem that it is considered good practise to include (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Yeah, I think the meaning was there, but the language was still a bit unclear. Here's a nice place to look for ideas on how to rework the language. (URL) section on Software is probably the closest match, and I believe this is the key (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) of course with the bit about rendered images still left in... sorry. It's late :) Tim (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Probably... maybe "LDraw.org does not consider LDraw model files (defined as being MPDs or LDR files whose main purpose is creating a model, ultimate discretion lies with the current LDraw SteerCo) to be derivative works of the Parts Library." (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Wouldn't this include modifying/converting...publishing the dat files themselves (a true derivative work)? (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I do think we should try to get it enshrined in the Constitution too. I really doubt it's ever going to be an issue but it should go some way to assuaging people's worries. Tim (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I think that is more workable, since it limits the README to addressing the interpretation of terminology in the license, rather than elaborating/modifying the actual license. Steve (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Anders, I'm sorry to say this but all your comments to me in this thread have been very negative without offering anything positive in return (by way of suggestions for improvements for example). Don made some good points and through debate (...) (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Perhaps people would prefer if we changed that paragraph to something like this in the README Tim ---- LDraw.org is the sole entity responsible for enforcement of the Parts Library copyrights. LDraw.org does not consider rendered images or (...) (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I wouldn't bother quoting the mathematical world at me. I'm well aware of what defines a mathematical proof or disproof. But... since you seem to wish to be pedantic I said what FURTHER point does it bring. The postulate was already disproved (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Apparently with all the legal posturing going on here, people missed this. Seems to me there's no need to fret about anything. Use the tools as you always have and nothing bad will happen. Play on. Allister (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I agree I shouldn't have used that word although it wasn't meant in a particularly offensive manner. Since Don did not seem to take it too badly I didn't apologise for it but had he I would have. And frankly there are more ways to be rude than (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
