 | | request for modification (Tracker)
|
|
Steve, I just thought of something that would be a "nice to have" feature, a modification to the Certification List page. If a person is "logged in", it would be nice if the Tracker's Certification List were to take this into account. That is, if a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) [*SPLUTTER*!] [*COUGH*!] [*CHOKE*!] [*GASP*!] My.... *heart*!.... [**THUD**!!!] (...) Ummmm.... ("(URL) think they're the same person. Franklin (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: does PT FAQ cover "CMDLINE"?...
|
|
Huzzah! (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) I don't think that it matters either. My Naval Nuclear Power eye for detail kicked in and I felt compelled to comment. -Orion (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) The ring primitives are being worked on, I believe. Steve (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) Hi Steve, May be I have missed something, but I need "RingX.dat" BFC-ed primitives, otherwise I can not review these studs: p/stud2 p/stud2a p/stud4 p/stud4a p/studp01 p/stu2p01 Damien (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) I don't feel so bad that so many of your parts are waiting for admin review. ;) (...) Yeah, but those files are split between Bernd and Sascha. Who I'm *assuming* are different people. Steve (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) (URL) (...) I think the only way it would matter for performance is if we decided that the *entire* library would be CW or CCW, and so rendering programs wouldn't have to check the winding direction at all. And that would be a very small (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts Tracker] More BFC Primitives
|
|
(...) For starters, I recently tried to track down the BFC specification but couldn't find it (on ldraw.org or on Steve's site). Could someone post the link please? (...) If it doesn't matter from a performance perspective, I vote you kill the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: does PT FAQ cover "CMDLINE"?...
|
|
(...) Thanks! I added your writeup to the PT FAQ. Let me know if everything's OK or not. (URL) Steve (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) Heh. That's not quite so far from the truth... :-/ "(URL) 117 file(s) Although this guy's giving me a run for the money. ;-) (And doing some *incredible* work, to boot!!) (URL) 72 file(s) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) Well, once things settle down a bit, we'll do a release. Right now, I'm scared to check how many certified files actually are associated with non-certified files (and so would need to be held back from a release -- that's extra work for me to (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | does PT FAQ cover "CMDLINE"?...
|
|
I've had several people ask me about the CMDLINE meta-statement. Shouldn't this meta-statement be covered in the FAQ for the Parts Tracker? (...) The CMDLINE meta-statement is a way of permitting the author to *document* certain run-time commands (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report
|
|
(...) Well, with the current huge number of files on the Parts Tracker, my browser is taking anywhere from 30 seconds to *two minutes* to load either the "Parts List" page or the "Certification List" page, so I'm *definitely* in favor of making a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Mac OS X - LdGLite Launcher .8
|
|
I have updated LdGLite Launcher to .81. New features: It remembers the last file you opened. There is a window showing a list of LEdit keys (for ease). New URL: (URL) whole point of this is to make it as easy to use as possible. LMKWYT. James (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | 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) !
|
| |
| | Re: [LCAD admin] plz re-name files...
|
|
(...) Cool. Thanks. Also, those two files needed their Title fixed (missing the descriptor "Double", indicating fingers on both ends), and the Keywords removed. Thanks, Franklin (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LCAD admin] plz re-name files...
|
|
(...) OK, I've renumbered these parts. Steve (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Numbers Report
|
|
"(URL) (472 files) Subparts (131 files) Primitives (65 files) 48-Segment Primitives (23 files) "(URL) certified files. 124 file(s) need admin review. 398 file(s) need more votes. 0 files have uncertified subfiles. 92 held files. Total: 691 Almost (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Part naming question for different versions of the same part
|
|
Part 4066 is a Duplo 1x2x2 brick. I'm wondering primarily about naming conventions. This part comes in two versions. The newer version allows a Duplo top-center stud to bind in the center, and the old one doesn't (it has a supporting structure in (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | [LCAD admin] plz re-name files...
|
|
Steve, I believe that I may have used the wrong part number for a couple of my files on the Parts Tracker. I'm specifically referring to the two patterned files I made for the 1x4 click-hinge brick: 30388p01 and 30388p02. I believe these should be (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) Assuming some reasonable limit on the size of a number in digits (say 20 total including before and after the decimal place, that allows a very big and pretty precise number) isn't there sort of an upper bound on the line length likely to be (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) It's a weakness of the posting method (the file came in via email). I believe the line-wrapping was performed by Willy's email software. I recommend that all DAT content be posted via LUGNET's web interface, to avoid this line-wrapping issue. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: What about BFC-ing studs? (was: Two questions on primitives)
|
|
(...) Sorry, I got distracted. I'll get back to BFC'ing and submitting those primitives. [snip] (...) You're working on an incorrect assumption here. Reflecting a subfile (ie, negating the multipliers for one dimension) will not invert the subfile. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
When I downloaded this part, I can see that Lugnet's DAT download truncated the lines to 80 characters. This totally mangled the part. Is this a weakness of the Lugnet interface, or is it enforcing a standard? In other words, are part file lines (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Mac OS 9 - ldglite crashing, more info
|
|
OK, it will probably take me a day or three to get all of this done. What do you mean "by turning on the debugging symbols in CW? I haven't read the CW manual or anything like it (again, I remind, I am only a novice programmer, got a degree in music (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | Re: Mac OS 9 - ldglite crashing, more info
|
|
(...) Install macsbug. When it crashes, type 'stdlog'. That will create a log file called 'stdlog' (on the desktop on this machine). Then type 'es' to get out of the app that crashed. Sometimes if things are really hosed, you may have to type 'rs' (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | Re: Mac OS 9 - ldglite crashing, more info
|
|
(...) I don't know where this ldraw folder came from. I thought it was the linux parts, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe it was the linux parts expanded on Mac OS X... I don't know. I recently rounded up all of my ldraw folders that I have collected over (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | Re: Mac OS 9 - ldglite crashing, more info
|
|
(...) I used the original Mac parts file and haven't crashed yet. (...) Is it really freezing the system, or just the app? Can you Force Quit? Matt (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | Mac OS 9 - ldglite crashing, more info
|
|
OK, so I finally was able to do some tests on what I posted about earlier (ldglite on Mac OS 9 crashing with lowercase files). Well, lower case isn't why it was crashing. I could download the linux files onto 2 different Macs with OS 9.2.2 and OS (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | What about BFC-ing studs? (was: Two questions on primitives)
|
|
(...) Okay... if this is the case, then what's the status on bringing the less-primitive primitives into BFC certification? Take studs for example. Studs strike me as a great candidate for getting BFC'd because of the potentially huge payoff. Of (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
