 | | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) time (...) Some things to think about: It would be irritating in Ldraw to have to page through lists that look like this: xxxxx.dat Blah blah blah X blah Tr. Yellow-Green yyyyy.dat Blah blah blah X blah Gold zzzzz.dat Blah blah blah X blah (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
wht the raised baseplate: for example the "walls" of the small 4 stud area go up 3 bricks and accross 1/2 a stud area. is this accurate enough or do you need to measute with a ruler? (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) Hmmm.. well, we *could* have them all... use 30086 and 30087 as the two parts of the dinghy... then have part 4106548 simply reference the two "subparts" and have this "element model" hard-coded in yellow... anyone wanting to use a different (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
here is what i will do to my non-patterned parts. bar 7 x 3 with double clips: no changes baseplate 32 x 32 raised with ramp: as i said the baseplate has been fixed and sent. regarding the problem with the bottom doesn't the cnayon plate need to be (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) This is my vote. If 4106548 is always yellow, without exception, hard-code the yellow color in the .DAT. (but see below) A possibly more sensible alternative is to do parts 30086 and 30087 each as color 16, and do a (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
Everyone, We are facing a major problem in numbering parts in LDraw. For quite some time I have been trying to follow a 3 rule plan for numbering pieces: 1. Full accuracy when possible 2. Use official TLG numbers if we have them 3. Use temporary (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | STOP Voting!
|
|
Sorry folks, The CGI server I was using for vote processing seems to have crapped out. So until I get a fix for it, please hold off on trying to do any voting. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) Assuming they pass the vote, then yes, you can send fixes. See Jonathan? This is what happens (and will happen) when you don't have real-life examples to work from. You may think they are accurate, but you really don't know. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) No, there is no strict rule. More of a common sense rule. But apparantly, common sense is not always sufficient. How could I possible enforce such a rule? And there would always be valid exceptions to it (see John VanZ's post) (...) Sending (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) Some of the parts you sent me were representations of parts that are complex in real life. Complex meaning that they have fine details that _should_ be modeled. (...) And even those "simple" parts are deficient. The magnifying glass is a good (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
