|
| | Re: [ldraw.org] Update
|
| (...) The more I think about it, I think a simple letter would do. But first I think we should experiment a bit with different logos and present them printed on the letter so they can review them right there and state their preference. Once I get (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.publish)
| | | | Re: [ldraw.org] Update
|
| (...) On the small logos it probably would not work, so another solution would have to be devised for that. (...) I'd prefer to keep it red. I don't think a wireframe fade would be considered under TLG's trade dress if a squabble arose. (...) I (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.publish)
| | | | Re: [ldraw.org] Update
|
| (...) Well, if we were to contact TLG, what would be the best approach to it, to get on their good side? I'm not totally objected to contacting them, I just would like to make sure we've done everything we can to have them not jump on us beforehand. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.publish)
| | | | Re: [ldraw.org] Update
|
| (...) Personally I didn't think twice about the Adequate.com red brick on the button. 1) I don't see it around that often and 2) to me the red 2x2 doesn't represent TLG (but to some it may). (...) Thanks :) Uhm, the 6982 was intended to be a (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | Re: Parts for LDraw or parts for POV-Ray?
|
| (...) ^^^...^^^ (...) LOL. But remember, it was a *free* raytracing program, with more features than POV at the time. And it ran faster under Linux than the DOS version. -gyug (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |