 | | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) I'm not confusing them. But I can't speak for other people. Once we've got part-files created, we'll have firmer ground to talk from. Steve (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I wonder -- are there color-specific part numbers for the dinghy, because it is a compound element? So if we publish two sub-files, and no shortcut, we skip the whole issue. But not publishing a shortcut seems really lame. The "part" is final (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) Just to be a pain: there are existing 'glued-together' parts in LDraw with sub-files for each component part and a main short-cut file for the whole thing. Two that spring to mind are the 2x2x11 pillar and the classic 2x4 plate hinge. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) If you're talking about the yellow hands from the large people, than I'm sure that they have holes. I'm looking at one of those parts right now and it has a hole in it. Maybe there are 2 versions of this part, with and without holes. I'll (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
