Subject:
|
Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Feb 1999 03:46:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
743 times
|
| |
|
|
At 04:27 AM 2/12/99 +0000, you wrote:
> > 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.
Right. I agree here, and I am also Lego-biased. If non-Lego parts are to be
modelled, they should have their own completely seperated parts database to
work off of so there is no confusion between the real thing and the cheap
imitation.
> 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.)
Agreed here too. 100%.
> > 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.
Right. I would prefer seeing a seperate discussion forum for the posting of
non-Lego brand or non-Lego compatible objects if the use of the software
ever makes it to that point.
> 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.
Correct.
> 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.)
I agree there. I am in full support of updating it to be for Lego products
only.
> 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.
Right.
> 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.
Ewwww. Enough said there, Todd. *shudders*
And Todd, you never got back to me concerning ICQ..
Does anyone else on this list have ICQ? If so, my UIN is 23951114 if you
want to chat online sometime...
Keep Building!!
-Tim <><
http://www.zacktron.com
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
New Lugnet Newsgroup? lugnet.off-topic.timmy.die.die.die ??
LEGO: SP++++c(6973)[ip++++ bt2++++ ex+++ ft+++ sp+++ ut++]
AQ+++(6175)[an+++ as++ hn-- sr--] TO++[ob+ dv+ tc-- tt-- tjr.---] TC++ CA+
PI+ BV--- DU--- HM--- S+ LS>+++ #++++ Hal M+ A+ YB82m
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
