 | | Re: Reference Site Inconsistencies
|
|
(...) Please Do!!! -- Jonathan Wilson wilsonj@xoommail.com (URL) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: 4x4x3 cone! (was: Re: Reference Site Inconsistencies)
|
|
(...) Yes it really is - and yes I have two in white. Chris (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.build)
|
| |
| | Re: 4x4x3 cone! (was: Re: Reference Site Inconsistencies)
|
|
(...) That's the set I got mine from as well. The rocketbase set was perhaps my most desired set during my early childhood that I didn't end up getting. - chris (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.build)
|
| |
| | Re: 4x4x3 cone! (was: Re: Reference Site Inconsistencies)
|
|
(...) Yup I've just checked it (I have two of the cones from the 725 freight train) (URL) the cone is three bricks tall, the size 4x4x3 is correct. -Frank (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.build)
|
| |
| | Re: 4x4x3 cone! (was: Re: Reference Site Inconsistencies)
|
|
(...) I do, but it's back at my mom's house in the SF Bay Area, and I'm here in sunny Cambridge, MA. If memory serves, it is indeed three bricks tall. It's a cool piece, and I'm surprised TLC has never brought it back, since they seem to have a (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.build)
|
| |
| | 4x4x3 cone! (was: Re: Reference Site Inconsistencies)
|
|
(...) Whoa! Wow! (URL) learn somethin' new about LEGO every day! :) --Todd p.s. Question: Was it really 3 standard bricks tall (most likely) or perchance was it just shy or just over 3 tall? Anyone got one for real? (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.build)
|
| |
| | Part 30358: SW Landspeeder Engine
|
|
Hi folx, I recently discovered that I've had this part 95% complete for a while now. I don't have time (nor will I in the forseeable future) to complete it, so I was wondering if any competent parts authors would like to finish it off. If anyone is (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Reference Site Inconsistencies
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) Yes, this was used as the nose cone for the rocket in 358 (Rocket Base) and is also in 230 (Salon Colette). So I guess I ought to model it !! Chris (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDAO 2.1.0 still beta?
|
|
Anyone know whether LDAO 2.1.0 is still in the "beta" stage? It's not up on Steve Bliss' LDAO page as the current version. What bugs still remain? James Wilson (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Reference Site Inconsistencies
|
|
I was cross-checking some information between LDraw/Partsref, Lutz Uhlmann's Parts Reference, and James Jessiman's Unofficial LEGO Parts Listing. I was specifically looking at the parts with number less than 1000[1], because I need to get a better (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: getting started making pieces
|
|
(...) Welcome - new part authors are always welcome. The following is my preferred method of doing decorated parts as is a good grounding if you go on to author complete parts - others have had some success with BMP2DAT for decorated parts. 1. (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | getting started making pieces
|
|
A naive question perhaps, but I can't find the answer anywhere... I want to try my hand at making parts for ldraw, specifically I want to make minifig faces and torsos that haven't been done yet. What program(s) do you wizard-types use to make the (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Update 9906
|
|
(...) for (...) sample (...) Yes you're right, and I've done enough torsos that I should not have made such an error. Chris (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Update 9906
|
|
(...) You're right, I gave that suggestion some time ago. The subpart only had the back surface when it was using the old number. Leonardo (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part 2951, some questions [DAT]
|
|
(...) I will centre between the lower pegholes then. (...) Goood:) (...) correction: I will not put the measurements up, as they are changing as I get along. Look below for more on this. (...) As of now, it looks like the worst part is figuring out (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Update 9906
|
|
(...) I got the fixes. Thanks for the rapid turn-around, Chris! About 973s01 - I don't remember if this subfile ever had a back surface. The name does clearly state that there's no back: "~Subpart Minifig Torso without Front or Back". IIRC, the back (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Planning - Almost There
|
|
(...) (rereading what I wrote) Uh, durrr, that came out as hogwash, didn't it. I meant, if the pages that are created dynamically happen to come out the same as though they had been served statically (IOW, if it's static content generated (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Planning - Almost There
|
|
(...) Yes. That AND the sort of data you are fetching. In certain cases, a DB engine that has cached the results of queries, coupled with a requesting program that can use the results straightaway, can be faster than a raw filesystem, even if the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Update 9906
|
|
(...) Looks like both John and I mistakenly assumed that s\973s01.dat is the torso missing the front surface - in fact it is missing the back as well to cater for those rare torsos with decoration on the back. I sent a corrected version of 973p34 to (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Planning - Almost There
|
|
(...) I have to wonder about that assertion in a really skeptical way. In either case, assuming the filesystem and the database aren't poorly written, the amount of RAM in the server is really the gating factor. If you have 50 MB of static files and (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
