 | | Re: Proposal
|
|
"Matthew Gerber" <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message news:GCsEHM.CD5@lugnet.com... (...) Go for it, that would be cool! Thanks! -Tim (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
Tim, I have a listing of thousands of file name extensions available to me. I will search it tonight and let you all know tomorrow if the ideas you all are talking about have been used before, if you would like. LMK, Matt (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
"Erik Olson" <olsone@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:GCsCrG.8n4@lugnet.com... (...) Yep, here's a few reasons: If .ldr is the standard file, people will mentally associate the editors - MLCad, LeoCAD, BrikDraw3D - viewers LDView, L3Lab - as (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: Proposal
|
|
(...) Oh, and it would mangle it a lot more than that for DOS display... 3193~1.ldr --Bram Bram Lambrecht bram@cwru.edu (URL) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) Tim (...) I like ldr too. (...) to (...) I use win2k here at work, I'll try on winme when I get home. I think you need to have the option to show file extensions enabled if you're using windows explorer, otherwise you can rename from a DOS (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: Proposal
|
|
Erik Olson (...) Turn off that annoying "Hide extensions of known file types" option in Folder Options (or something similar) Windows 95/98/etc doesn't seem to care how long file extensions are (*.html, for example), three letters is just the norm. (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) Well to get back to 8.3 it only takes chopping off the last 2 chars, and Tim likes .LDR . How DO you give a file a 5 letter extension in Windows? I tried it (Win95 handy...) and it keeps a secret .dat extension after that too... I wanted to (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) I'm (...) part (...) in (...) Steve, I have in my possession several Complete Minifig Shortcuts, covering the first six Space groups (back when all astronauts were created equal). They are numbered as follows: 979 and 980 ... p90.dat (Classic (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) I think we should try to keep the 8.3 filename convention from DOS because of ldraw/ledit. We can just use mpd as someone suggested. (...) Sounds like an Apple guy talking :) Leonardo (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
How about .ldraw? Just thinking differently. (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I think a small script running "l3p -check" called from within the CVS commitinfo file would work great for this. (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I'll go look up the discussion. I'm just getting back into the swing of things. I think CVS would be a great way of distributing the parts. There's clearly some managment tools needed to help with organizing the submissions and reviews of new (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) What I'd really like to see, is these tools defaulting to something other than .dat when files are saved. I expect them to all still support .dat. What I'd really like to see is people publishing their files with an extension other than .dat. (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
"Jonathan Wilson" <jonwil@tpgi.com.au> wrote in message news:3AF13FF5.28B262....com.au... (...) totally (...) all (...) available (...) OK, I see what you mean. It would still mean that Steve would have to then check to see if it really is a (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) You and Fredrik are both correct on this, of course. And most tools will accept any extension on files, so if you have a DAT model named whatever.foo, you can still render it in LDraw, LDLite or L3Lab (for example). Steve (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) Yes. And I won't even commit to exactly which one would be released (probably the one I received more recently, because that works with authors sending several different versions of their parts as they fix them). Actually, I don't *think* this (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Feature Article - Progress in the LDraw Community...
|
|
Nice to see a photo of some people who post here and have a lot to do with LDraw. (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) I dont mean where there are 2 parts that are identical. I mean that if 2 different authors have both used, say, x123.dat for 2 totally different parts.. In that case, one of them will be renamed to something else anyway when it all becomes (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
"Jonathan Wilson" <jonwil@tpgi.com.au> wrote in message news:3AF0F252.79A88B....com.au... (...) another part (...) them will (...) of them (...) That would be a bit confusing, and if any beginners loaded the unofficial parts (you just know it's (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken Links on Download page?
|
|
Steve: (...) files which had been moved. It should work now. Jacob (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) I think we should settle for mpd. Let's not bring another extention into this to cause even more confusion. One can always use .mpd on an LDraw file, even if it does not contain any "FILE" keywords, right? So there are no problems related to (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) Does this mean that if there are 2 parts called x530.dat that only one of them will be released? I hope that you would have the sense to take the few minutes to assign one of them to an unused x number :) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:k3u0ftckudqbaaf...4ax.com... (...) attached (...) I've been a proponent of .ldr whenever it has come up. I like that, and the other extensions you propose. -Tim (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken Links on Download page?
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:39u0ftkhkkud4nv...4ax.com... (...) were (...) .html (...) automagically"? Well, I got it by typing out the URL, so its a bigger problem, at least I think. It was an automagic thing (intended (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken Links on Download page?
|
|
(...) It's only a problem when someone is trying to follow the links from the Downloads page.... Oh, maybe you meant "is this something that's going to be fixed automagically"? Steve (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) How about these: ldr - LDraw (dat) files mpd - Multi-Part lDraw files ldl - files with LDLite language extensions lds - LDScript files mlc - files with MLCad language extensions Steve (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) Erg. The .DAT extension is pretty much needed by all tools in use. And the original tools are still used quite a bit, especially in cases where tool flexability is more important than a GUI. (i.e. I still use LEdit to model tank treads, since (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal
|
|
(...) I think you could use .mpd Many of the tools already accept this extension, and I believe (correct me if I am wrong someone) that you can rename your model files, and any model files you download, to use this extension. Of course parts and (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken Links on Download page?
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:GCq713.IJ2@lugnet.com... (...) playing with changing all file names to .shtml and making links from the .html extensions. Jacob, can you fix this? Is this even the problem? -Tim (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Proposal
|
|
I've got a bit of a problem with the LDraw derived software. I love the tools I use. My problem is with the unfortunate choice of filename extension. When LDraw/LEdit were written, it didn't really matter much. However, nowadays file (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Broken Links on Download page?
|
|
Maybe it's my system, or just a temporary issue, but the following two URLs both came up broken just now. (URL) the following URL works just fine: (URL) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) Argh, I remembered about those, and still didn't kill the old files. Thanks for pointing this out. Steve (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
(...) Actually, much of the functionality is in the prototype. The major missing pieces are: 1. Unofficial/ad-hoc part downloading 2. Release packaging 3. Administrator override of author/reviewer functions (ie, the admin can perform any function) (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New Feature Article - Progress in the LDraw Community...
|
|
Tim, Your article is well written and will hopefully quell some of the negative noise being made out there. Thank you for including LDMC, also. James and I are doing what we can to make LDMC a force to be reckoned with. Your help has been (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | New Feature Article - Progress in the LDraw Community...
|
|
Hello - I have put up a new article outlining the past progress, current efforts, and future possibilities of the LDraw community. Enjoy! (URL) Courtney - tim@ldraw.org (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
(...) Watch out here, Franklin submitted the SW heads twice, once without the P and a three digit pattern number, then he resent them with the two letter pattern code. Maybe the non-P parts should be ignored? Dan (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
I got a question in email, and I thought the answer would be of general interest. The question: (...) The answer: In short, very loose form, the main workflow is: Process 1: Author uploads file -> Reviewers check out file -> Reviewers check/certify (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
Bravo! -Chuck (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Unofficial Update Progress
|
|
I am working on an 'unofficial update' page. Just to have a handle for it, I'm labeling it 'update 2001-01', although after update 2001-02, the unofficial update will go away, cease to exist, become as though it never was. Some things that I am (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Paul, I don't know if you saw earlier messages about the Part Tracker, but there was some discussion about whether or not we could use CVS as a backend to an automated system. What do you think? There are a number of features we need that (I (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
(...) This "problem" seems to be quite familiar to a lot of us ;-) (...) (d) I looked at it, but it was practically only GUI stuff without the necessary functionality, and I'm not the right guy to comment on GUIs... (...) Yes, that would have been (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
(...) Right now, it's a monolithic project; there hasn't been any segmentation of tasks. That's mostly my fault; I haven't reviewed the progress Dan has made, so I can't say where there's a need for work. It's also an artifact of not having a good (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) This sounds almost like communistic ideology: For the project to ultimately become open, it must first become more closed for a while! ;-) (...) That's undoubtedly an interesting idea. Fredrik (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
HeeHeee! I have great faith in Tim that one day LDraw will become an open project, but I don't think it has ever been one in the past! :) As soon as the parts library is opened up, I promise I'll check it all into Sourceforge.org, so one can use (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
(...) Email me with some things that need to be done and I let you know what I can do. Paul (I have been busy updating some of the parts I have receintly "finished" also currently reworking the aquazone propellor) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
Just use a script to do that or even a small program, I don't think you need to manually change each file. Leonardo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> To: <lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com>; (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) That's a good idea, but it requires editing *all* of the files to be released. The idea of an unofficial release is that it's quick'n'dirty - as little work as possible. Processing a large number files, even if it is just a minor change, takes (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
how about making all unofficial parts go to "unofficial" group like bricks and plates? -- And they said 'Computers will never be in general use' "Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> wrote in message news:GCo1LK.Gpx@lugnet.com... (...) have (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
HMM a minor idea. group all Unofficial parts in "Unofficial" group like "brick" and "plate" type of group. -- And they said 'Computers will never be in general use' "Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:p61uetc27fg7opi...4ax.com... (...) I think I see it now. As far as broken models go, we don't want that. I have had a couple of those, and that's frustrating. I got your message in this (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Parts Tracker Developers Wanted
|
|
Well, sort of. Here's more of the story: I asked Dan Boger if he could help with developing the new automated Parts Tracker. He's been working on it, as he's had time, for awhile now. Unfortunately, he doesn't really have any time to put into it, (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I think I can use my part-voting-preparation utilities to generate a webpage like the ones we use for voting. So people could check out what the unofficial parts are, and either download them all in one shot, or just grab what they want. Steve (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I think Chris is right. It will be challenging to disclaim an unofficial update in a way that nobody will get upset later. When we do officialize the pieces, there will be orientation changes, and different part numbers with no forwarding (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with reaching www.ldraw.org
|
|
Tim, I think it would be a Good Thing to make this a news item on the ldraw.org homepage. And then park it permanently on ldraw.org somewhere (like in an ldraw.org FAQ). It won't help people at the time they're having the problem, but they'll be (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) The problem I see with releasing the current unofficial parts in a single download is that it's going to make it harder for anyone who wants to help out in checking individual parts - they're going to have to download a large ZIP file of parts (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Well tell me then. Larry. How hard is it to just zip up the parts that have already been submitted, and why? Are they all not sitting in a directory somewhere on someone's hard drive? Or are they really scattered in an ad-hoc fashion? Trust (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Do you really think this is a 10 minute job? If so you must really have a low opinion of the gang, then, that they would hold out on you to save a mere 10 minutes of their time. I hope that's not the case, but rather that you're just really (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Zipping up the parts already collected: 5 minutes Writing the disclaimer: 2 minutes Uploading zipfile and disclaimer to LDRAW.ORG: 3 minutes Catching the warm glow as the parts preview is released: Priceless. For the really big tasks there's a (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) You can't have your cake and eat it too, Jeremy! Who do you think would be doing a significant portion (hopefully not all, but non zero) of the packaging task? ++Lar (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Let's not reinvent the wheel. This process is already largely done, I would think, as part of the new parts update system now in development. The interim solution needs to be quick & easy for the implementors. Cheers, - jproat (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Thank you Fredrik, for so succinctly expressing what I was feeling. I was building up a lot of frustration because I felt I had to make a loud noise in order to be heard. (...) I think the discussions should still be in the open. No consensus (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) This would work. Just don't take Steve off of the new system -- with him working on it, it's gonna be good. Cheers, - jsproat (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:qrd1yq98itn.fsf....uio.no... (...) Its not a matter of hiding the work, see below. (...) This is the case. Newsgroup discussions get noisy - people tend to have long drawn out (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GCnMwn.Axw@lugnet.com... (...) Disagree. We package the parts and put a whoppin disclaimer on them. They are not official, just compiled and made easily available. We make it clear that (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GCnMwn.Axw@lugnet.com... (...) I've only done one part so far and I've had just 4 comments (1 on an "almost done it" post, 2 on a "done it but no optional lines yet", and 1 by private (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:GCMuJ8.E5M@lugnet.com... (...) the (...) attached. (...) I think this needs a little modification - if the parts could be zipped separately then people could just get the ones they want, and as (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) That's too bad. I notice your parts, but I rarely comment on them because I'm not into those kind of parts that you model. Your parts are commonly related to minifigs, and I rarely use them. Besides, your parts are nearly always perfect (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Agree - unofficial means they may change - and if the change is to the origin or orientation then users will get (even more) upset. (...) I always do, ((URL) except maybe bug-fixes, BUT (...) ... I rarely get any comment, good or bad. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Well, when an official vote/update is announced, I'm am usually impressed at the number of new parts that I have not yet seen. So I was assuming that those parts had been submitted without having been posted, and that this still goes on. (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) It seems to me that LDraw has become a project of secrecy and inside work. When did it stop being an "open" project? When did discussions concerning LDraw cease to be done in the open? I think I missed this. I realize that whoever work with (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Most unofficial parts ARE posted to lugnet.cad.dat.parts Either that or they are available for download from the web :) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I don't think that unofficial parts should be published from LDraw. How about simply encouraging the parts authors to post their parts to lugnet.cad.dat.parts? That way, people can see which parts are in the pipeline. Besides, people can (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Winner! May 2001 ldraw.org MOTM competition
|
|
A *very* interesting race this time. Right from the start, the truck and the space station took the lead. And they swapped that lead several times. Then the truck started to pull ahead slightly..... Looking like a solid front-runner.... But as fate (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
As you can imagine, behind the scenes discussion is running fast and furious (not in the Mad sense, in the fast sense...oh never mind) The following are rambles/my opinions, not official statements of position (remember I am the nonvoting member who (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Carsten Schmitz" <casz@gmx.de> wrote in message news:GCMtBs.ByD@lugnet.com... (...) Good point, and I agree. I've gotta work out some management stuff on my own - especially this week. I'll also be lowering my standards of expectations for (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
Hello Chuck, (...) temp (...) it. (...) Yes. That is a nice idea but some of the parts dont still have pattern numbers or copyrights are missing or something like that. (...) parts (...) the (...) pre-release. (...) Hmm.. I am a parts authour but I (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
Hello Larry, Jeremy I'm following this thread very closely... and i have to jump in at this point. (...) I think Tim has waited to long to get help from other volunteers. There has been at least some people in the newsgroups and some via email (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) OK, so I lied, I guess I am a parts author of sorts: (URL) are on Tore's tracker. Feel free to include my updated heads. -Chuck (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) You might also ask the parts author's permission before including their parts in the "pre-release". Some people can be touchy about this. I'm not a parts author, so no need to ask me. -Chuck (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
I think I'll do that, if I can find the time (work in the real world's going to get pretty hectic over the next month). Thanks Chuck. -Orion (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Orion, you bring up a great idea that could solve the problem in the interum. Take all the parts you can find on Tore's tracker and in the parts newsgroup, put them in a self extracting archive or .zip file, and post the file somewhere like (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
I've been playing with ldraw and all it's wonderful part for only a short time now. What I don't understand in this discussion is what is the difference in an 'offical' vs 'unoffical' part. Apart from whewre I can download offical part what is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Ummmm.... Isn't that what the lugnet.cad.dat.parts newsgroup (or Tore's temp parts tracker) is for? You go looking for the part you want and install it. That's what I've been doing. What I wanted when I asked my original question (which has (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) The bugger here is that we could play what-if with the schedule all year long. I won't do that. (...) Why not? Aren't the users why the whole LDraw thing happens, anyway? (...) I would, but only to get it done my way -- quick & cheap & dirty. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
I mostly agree so I mostly snipped... (...) How does that help? That is, suppose it would take 40 man hours of work to resolve the bottleneck and get the new process on line and running. If that 40 hours avoids 400 or 4000 hours of user effort, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Fine, okay, you can call it what you want. The fact remains, something needs to be done. I'm making it known the only way I know how. The delay in the parts update system is becoming pretty unpopular, and it begs the question: is this being (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) It can't be "justified", but stamping one's foot isn't going to help, Jeremy, and you know that. I think what we need is an unoffical update. Package them up as unofficial and tell people to take their chances. But realise that there is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) This isn't really a matter of patience; it's been far too long than it needs to be. We need a better system. In the mean-time, the factors contributing to the delay can be addressed, and quickly. e.g. What are the factors holding back the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> wrote in message news:GCMJot.E07@lugnet.com... (...) this (...) Kinda unrelated statement, I intended it to reflect more the project as a whole. I think (and I accept that this will never be the case) that the whole (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I'm not understanding here. The parts are available in file form in a some cluster in some repository somewhere, yes? Publishing them, even in an unofficial process, would simply consist of putting them on a server. There would be little-to-no (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:GCMIxI.BvL@lugnet.com... (...) this (...) Just sent another email to a few people about this. I hope there'll be some progress. -Tim (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Chuck Sommerville" <chucks@he.net> wrote in message news:GCMILA.AwH@lugnet.com... (...) I've been pushing for this inside for quite some time, with little response. Even splitting up the work for a big update among some of us who discuss LDraw.org (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Perhaps we could break the job into smaller chunks, like maybe 20 parts a week to relieve the pipeline pressure. -Chuck (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Okay, this is getting ridiculous. We need a parts update. There are, what, hundreds?, of parts wasting in the pipeline. How much longer are they going to sit there? How can holding the parts for this long be justified? Give me unofficial (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Problems with reaching www.ldraw.org
|
|
Several people have in the last year reported problems with getting access to www.ldraw.org. The reason for this problem appears to be that the default "time-to-live" (TTL) for TCP packets is too low. I have now recieved confirmation that this is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: May 2001 ldraw.org MOTM voting
|
|
hmm allright. thanks -- And they said 'Computers will never be in general use' "Terry K" <legoverse@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:GCJAG3.MM0@lugnet.com... (...) had (...) not (...) another (...) files (...) is (...) other (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: May 2001 ldraw.org MOTM voting
|
|
"I" didn't do that. According to the email that John Miller sent me, he had converted the model to DXF and imported into Bryce 4 for rendering. What exactly he converted from, or what he used to convert with, he did not specify. -- Terry K -- (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw meeting at Brickfest 2001 - Interest?
|
|
(...) ...I really think the demos aspect would be popular and fun. I'm hoping maybe we can settle into one of the classrooms upstairs and play/work in little groups on assorted concepts involved (I personally am interested in POVing LCAD stuff). I (...) (23 years ago, 26-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad, lugnet.events.brickfest)
|
| |
| | Re: May 2001 ldraw.org MOTM voting
|
|
how did you do that? so far only leocad exports obj and i couldnt find a convertor for rest of types of 3d data files bryce supports. -- And they said 'Computers will never be in general use' "Terry K" <legoverse@yahoo.com> wrote in message (...) (23 years ago, 26-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: May 2001 ldraw.org MOTM voting
|
|
(...) Bryce, or more accurately Bryce 4, is a renderer. It is a commercially available program that is very powerful, and the results are very good. A small correction here; I made a mistake - only one of the models was rendered using Bryce 4 (the (...) (23 years ago, 26-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
