 | | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) It seems to me that the only reason on TLG's part to have 2 seperate numbers and then one different aggregate number for a specific color is to provide for a situation in which the two pieces are different colors (ie: black top, yellow (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <36d6f2f0.17111521@l...et.com>... (...) Is the soccer ball part spherical with printed pattern, or does the physical part consist of hexagons and pentagons like a real soccer ball? -John Van (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) Accessory pack #5131. Steve (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
It's not an update. It's an A/B version thing--Tile 1x1 Old Style, Tile 1x1 New Style. Steve (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) In this case, I say use the number stamped on the part. (...) Did we decide to move away from the xxxxPxx format? This sounds like a good reason to rethink that decision. Not that I expect this particular element to ever resurface in a (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) Damn. They noticed. After the chrome antenna fiasco, I swore to keep my mouth shut, and not point out potential part-number mixups. Actually, I forgot all about that little trivial bit of part-numbering reality on the obviously (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) I think that this part is OK. I haven't done a detailed check. (...) It was. Richard actually went through some trouble to get that part correct. That's how I know what I know about the fix I suggested (in a different message): Richard went (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: concave polys and LDraw
|
|
(...) Someone (sorry, I totally don't remember who) suggested that you can generate an optional line between two poly's (pollies?) by using the center-points of the poly's as the test-points (points 3 and 4). I don't know how well this works, but (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) No winky needed. It's a very valid point. I definitely thought about making the lettering raised for the coins. Then again, I was also thinking to myself "why am I wasting time on these useless, decoration-only parts when I could be doing some (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) The best measurements are against other lego parts. The ruler is a fall-back for odd-sized bits. Steve (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) I disagree with the first sentence (as I've said). I don't have this part, so I can't give any detailed feedback on the accuracy of the part-file; I must stick to generalities. An easy way to fix this part (enough to earn the coveted 'needs (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Quality of authored parts
|
|
Perhaps this would be a good time to have a discussion of standards for authoring new parts--separate from any particular parts or authors. How realistic do you think parts ought to be in order to be considered for inclusion in the official L-CAD (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) oh yeah.. i just meant 10 minutes to do one and see how it looks... doing all of the tiles in our catalog would be at least an 11-minute job ;) J (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) Red? COOL! I need I need I need gimme gimme gimme I need I need (1) Where can I get some? Cheers, - jsproat 1. Name *that* movie, I dare you! :-, (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Java LDraw/LDLite
|
|
(...) I've though a bit about this -- I think I would prefer uncompressed individual files, as this would make parts updates easier on the server end. Just copy the /P and /PARTS dirs to the Web server. (1) <DEVILS_ADVOCATE> However, the JDK now has (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: concave polys and LDraw
|
|
(...) unfortunately because of our limitatiions here, i can't illustrate the problem... but if you take a 4-pointed chevron-type shape... sort of like a "V" and hand its points off to LDraw, it comes out as a triange... that's bad if you need the (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) I recently offered to do just this and apply it to the existing decorated tiles (more than 10 minutes work to do it properly, IMHO), (URL) since I do not own all the decorated tiles myself I need guidance on which ones use the tile with the (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | [3068 with groove] (was:DAT voting page up) [DAT]
|
|
(...) never (...) okay.. so here's a 3068 with the groove... any reason why we haven't already updated these??? (please feel free to let me know if i'm treading on some sacred ground or something here... but in all honesty, i don't see a problem (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) hmmm... i never noticed that before.. that the LDraw model of 3068 (as well as other tiles) doesn't have the fingernail groove around the edge... although i say that's BS.. in my opinion (looking at a couple stacked here on the desk, up (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) How could the TLG part be wrong? I'm not understanding this... (...) No, it isn't a good use of 'needs work'. You are talking about skipping half of the surface area. (...) No, it's not appropriate to use 'needs work' for this part. (...) Very (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
