Subject:
|
Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Feb 1999 04:27:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2127 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, jsproat@geocities.com (Sproaticus) writes:
> [...]
> > I don't use LDraw/LEdit enough for my opinion to really count here, but I
> > know that it would really bother me* to see .DAT files referencing non-TLG
> > parts posted to the lugnet.cat.dat newsgroup. People can still do what they
> > want of course, since the charter for lugnet.cad.dat places no restrictions
> > on the content of the .DAT files posted to it, but I would hope that people
> > still have enough respect for LEGO to keep non-TLG parts well-separated,
> > somehow.
>
> I don't see this as respect for Lego, but rather prejudice towards inferior
> brands.
It's both. Not that I'm closed-minded, but I really have a lot of trouble
imagining a competitor ever coming out with a better product in the same
category as LEGO. And even if one did -- and even if the product were
totally LEGO compatible -- it just wouldn't *be* LEGO, and therefore IMHO it
wouldn't belong alongside anything truly LEGO.
Call me a brand-purist, I guess. Maybe it comes from playing with LEGO for
over 30 years and always enjoying it. (And playing with off-brands every
once in a while and very seldom enjoying it.)
> Suppose someone started making DAT files for Tente pieces? Or even
> possibly K'Nex?
With respect to the act of creating them? Or with respect to my opinion on
the appropriateness of posting them here?
If the scope of LDraw (the software package) goes beyond LEGO, more power to
it. I understand that it's a totally amazing program/system that can model
just about any construction toy (so long as it doesn't have lots of curves,
fur, liquids, or other weird stuff). What you create with LDraw is your own
business, and you can talk about it all you want here. Just please take
into consideration the nature of the forum you're posting into if you post
any data files.
lugnet.cad.dat doesn't specifically say that the .DAT files have to be for
true LEGO-brand elements and/or models, but I think there are other places
on the net more appropriate to post or publish non-LEGO-brand-based
creations.
Just my opinion. (Probably also the 90% majority opinion, however, from the
sound of things, so the charter for lugnet.cad.dat could or possibly should
be updated, since it's probably an unspoken expectation that the group only
be used for data based on real LEGO products and not on clone products.)
> These products are not necessarily inferior to Lego, just different.
Agreed! They are definitely different; it's only my opinion that they're
inferior (I have tried them). That doesn't make them inferior for real, if
there even is such a thing.
> Since LDraw's archetecture doesn't limit which product is
> modelled (2), I think that people should not only be free to do what they
> want, but also to express how they feel. Whether or not it happens on LUGNET
> is up to you, Todd; but with free Web space available from a dozen sources for
> non-Lego parts authors, that's not really an issue.
> [...]
It wouldn't bother me if people talked about modelling non-LEGO-brand
entities so long as it furthered the cause of the phenomenon known as LDraw
and didn't get in the way of real LEGO discussions, but I'd be very pleased
never to see the .cad.dat group cluttered up with clone stuff.
Not that there's anything wrong with liking or building with or talking
about clones or other construction systems. I just have this fear (maybe
unfounded) of non-LEGO stuff accidentally creeping into databases and parts
collections and all that. Maybe someone forgets to label a new part as non-
LEGO. Or maybe they model an MOC with 95% real LEGO and 5% clone/MOC bricks
and casual viewers don't know that they cheated.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
| (...) I'll admit, I'm something of a Lego fanatic myself. However, I have had some very good experiences building with Tente and Construx. I wish now that I had never gotten rid of my Tente pieces. :-( (...) Hmmm... I would suggest that a (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
| (...) I thought the expectation (and specification) was that the newsserver lugnet.com was to be used for LEGO-oriented discussion and communication. The *.off-topic hierarchy is just there because we occasionally get off-track. Steve (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
| (...) Cmon, Todd, who ya sayin' cheated? (Roy hangs his head and shuffles his feet) Tell me it aint so, Todd. ( Small tear forming in the corner of his eye ) Snifff! (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
| (...) Oh, sure. All parts that go into the updates go through a peer review process, then the collection is assembled by Terry for distribution. Even assuming the non-Lego parts survive the voting, all that would be needed is policy on Terry's end (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
