 | | RE: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
Aside from the clone, other, and fictitious ( Is it fiction if its real? ) parts questions, I began reading to LCAD discussion mainly because of LDRAW. The fact that LDRAW and LEGO interests functioned together pleased me to no end, but I really (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Yes, if the date format is yyyy-mm-dd. :) /Tore (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:16:53 GMT, "Steve Bliss" <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Sorry to follow-up on my own message, but would this format be acceptable to everyone: 0 1999-01-01 SEB Minor corrections I think that date format will be (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) BTW, I wouldn't call this re-using part numbers, I'd call it making new versions of the same part. A version-number would be good, though. Steve (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Right. In the LDraw parts library, these multi-version parts are (typically) designated by appending a version-letter to the part's filename. The mini-figure heads are a good example of this. 3626A.dat is the original solid-stud head. (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Proper tiles (Was: Clone "semi-bricks" (Was: Non-TLG Parts))
|
|
(...) Ya know, this has been one of my pet peeves with LDraw. But since I'm too lazy to learn how to create pieces, I haven't said anything about it until now. Would anyone have the time, inclination, and patience to "fix" the 4 dozen or so Tile (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) That makes it less frustrating? (...) The list must go on and on... :-[p How different are the two sweet streeper brushes? --Todd (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DOS Makelist (was Re: Uber-install (was Re: Organizing the Si te Revamp))
|
|
(...) Ur. The last I paid attention to was makelst4, which didn't work for me because I have a different sort.exe (from MKS Toolkit). I started using my own after that point. (...) That would be way cool IMO. I would guess case-insensitivity would (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DOS Makelist (was Re: Uber-install (was Re: Organizing the Si te Revamp))
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) Yes, please. Steve (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clone "semi-bricks" (Was: Non-TLG Parts)
|
|
(...) That was the opinion stated by Jacob, which I generally agree with, but it depends on the detail in question. Some common, details which are larger than 1LDU details and are skipped in LDraw parts: - the indentations on the undersides of (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Yes, but I think only for _equivalent_ parts. I just discovered that there are two versions of the Street Sweeper Brush Holder (2578) - both have this number moulded on. Chris Dee (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Joshua relayed once to me some deductive evidence that TLG has recycled part numbers in at least a couple odd circumstances. For example, the 1x2 plate hinges numbered 4275 & 4276 originally had only 1 hinge finger on the male part and 2 hinge (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) Yeah... I was just being conservative/literal in my interpretation of the charter for the .cad.dat group. I think it really should be modified to say that it's for .DAT files based on LEGO-brand elements only. (Would this cause great unrest? I (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) I'm not sure the appropriate quality-level of MegaBloks could be modeled in LDraw. They'd fit together just as well as LEGO-based LDraw parts. :( Steve (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: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) It's happened on at least one occasion. The problem is with the LDraw library, usually--a part was released with the wrong number, and there is a different part which actually should have that number. (...) AFAIK, TLG doesn't recycle numbers. (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DOS Makelist (was Re: Uber-install (was Re: Organizing the Si te Revamp))
|
|
(...) jsproat wrote: (...) ANSI (...) Don't we really have a working makelist? What about makelst2, makelst3, makelis4, makelisb, makelisc, ... If you would like me to, I can quickly make a small and fast makelist using my good old reliable (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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: Clone "semi-bricks" (Was: Non-TLG Parts)
|
|
(...) I think the standard mentioned on L-CAD was details >= 1 ldu get drawn, and the curved edges on DUPLO definitely have a radius > 1 ldu. -John Van (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) inferior (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
