 | | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) That's pretty much what I'm planning. I'm just not sure whether to plow ahead and finish BFC'ing *all* the primitives, or stick with what's already been submitted. :) Steve (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
"(URL) (473 files) Subparts (133 files) Primitives (85 files) 48-Segment Primitives (23 files) "(URL) certified files. 37 file(s) need admin review. 206 file(s) need more votes. 325 files have uncertified subfiles. 91 held files. Total: 714 OK, now (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) There was some discussion whether one winding was better or not. Not limited to primitives, just in general. I think I arbitrarily put in the clause about all primitives being CCW, mostly to promote consistency, but also partly to see if it (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) Um... Not to stir the pot or anything but I was reading the BFC proposal on your website and noticed that the BFC specification says that all primitves must be certified CCW. Did this get revised via discussion and not updated? -Orion (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
I've submitted BFC'ed versions of all the official stu*.dat files. Surprisingly, a fair number of files are still in certified status. I expected nearly everything to drop back to "uncertified subfiles". Apparently, we don't depend on studs as much (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [LCAD admin] plz re-name files...
|
|
(...) Done. But because of length limitations, I had to remove the word "Danger" from both titles. The keywords look fine to me. Steve (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part naming question for different versions of the same part
|
|
(...) I'd go for either option #1 or #3. In option #2, it seems like the name for 4066b.dat is misleading, because the difference between the parts is (relatively) minor. And I'd actually lean toward #3, because the difference is in the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) Sure, that's possible. But by the time you get to a theoretical upper bound, you're way past the practical upper bound. So I'm not sure what the practical benefit would be. Steve (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) Sorry for the mess, I'll fix my settings before I post my next part. Willy (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | ldraw.org MOTM & SOTM Winner for March 2002
|
|
Hi all, If you carefully read the subject line, you may have noticed something odd. I said 'winner', not 'winners' Yep, that's right, this months awards are a sweep for just one person. Congratulations to Cale Leiphart for winning both the Model and (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
