 | | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I vote in favour of solution #1 By the way, The pink Belville dinghy exists, it was part of set #5841 As seen from the pictures in my Dutch 1988 catalogue, it's identical to the yellow dinghy . Greetings, M. Moolhuysen. (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) Are you sure about this? I mean, I don't doubt that the length of the axles is LDraw is a bit to large, but doesn't this apply to nearly all parts? Surely a 1x1 brick is smaller than 20LDUx20LDU in real life, to leave some gap between the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: patents
|
|
(...) I say go forth blindly. Just do it. If they get upset, then we worry about it. I would be more concerned if we were talking about Star TREK elements, since Paramount is well known for trying to squash anything they can't profit from. -- Terry (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote 99-02: Page 3900
|
|
(...) Good point. All I have is ones as you described it - no holes/one stud. Somebody speak up on this so we can get it straightened out. Until I get a good answer, this part is on hold. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) The problem is a bit more narrow than that. Basic pieces, like the 1x2 brick, are not affected by all this numbering/coloring controversy. Those pieces had a simple part number that is common to all the colors. So we would NOT be having (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) 1. Understood. 2. That's a given. I don't really expect to see detail. It is not something that would be a requirement, IMO. (...) No idea. It was news to me. Joshua might know something about it, but he never mentioned that one to me. (...) I (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) that (...) possibility (...) question (...) great point.. and well thought-out... hmmmm... okay... so then as i see it we have two options.. #1 (my preference, since this is how we handle two halves of every hinge, wheel-tyre combo, etc.. (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: patents
|
|
(...) 1) TLG knows about LDraw. 2) One or more LEGO employees read this newsgroup/mailing list. Steve (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
onyx wrote in message ... (...) you're (...) don't (...) the (...) that (...) basic (...) to (...) LDraw (...) that (...) i (...) You've got my support here. I don't care to use LDraw as a TLG reference ...just wanna model. We need to follow the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | patents
|
|
be verry careful about making TLG aware of ldraw because they have probobly patented lego (or at least parts of it) and if you tell them about ldraw then they may find a way to get you for patent ifringement. (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
