 | | Re: Syntax error in official part 754.dat?
|
|
(...) There was a discussion about this awhile ago. Since LDraw will interpret these lines as subfile commands, the lines are syntactically correct. Badly formed, but not invalid. And 754.dat is getting fixed in the 2000-01 update! Steve (25 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Syntax error in official part 754.dat?
|
|
Hi, I just noticed that L3Lab interpreted the following lines as real lines, not as comments: 01 16 0 -2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ring3.dat 01 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ring3.dat I sent a mail to Lars to notify him of this small "bug", but then it (...) (25 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Subparts for Black Falcon and Wolfpack Patterns ?
|
|
(...) errors. (...) common (...) these (...) let (...) Having now looked in more detail at the torsos, I will probably modify this proposal. On the torsos the _shield_ is a very different shape and scale to the shield part. The actual wolf and black (...) (25 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: what is legos official view of ldraw?
|
|
(...) I get ya. It is ok to make any lego part untill or unless TLG says otherwise. (25 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: the parts 754.dat and 756.dat in the 8.5L hose
|
|
(...) Thanks for clearing that up! In that case, I'll submit the 756.dat I just posted to lugnet.cad.dat.parts to Steve Bliss. Since it is an improvement of an existing part, it shouldn't require a vote, right? Fredrik (25 years ago, 19-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
