 | | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) A couple of occasions. Not much can be done about it. It requires that any person who had used that part in a model to go back and manually update it to the correct number. (...) As far as the 3-digit (or less) numbers in LDraw goes, I try to (...) (26 years ago, 13-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DOS Makelist (was Re: Uber-install (was Re: Organizing the Si te Revamp))
|
|
(...) And please remember to "pad" the right side out to the same width as the current parts.lst file has - it is fixed at 79 characters width. If you don't, the parts view in LEdit gets real messy. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 13-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: News-by-Mail digests
|
|
(...) You may want to consider switching to a real e-mail client. :) Just kidding mostly, but I'm using a little shareware program called Becky! Internet Mail that seems to handle the thousands of messages I have in my LCAD folder just fine. :) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) That is unfortunate. It just has always seemed logical for the element to exist, but have never been able to reason out why it doesn't. I had hoped that it did exist and that I had somehow missed it along the line. Oh, well... Roy P. S. I'm (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) The Internet thrives upon discussion. Without it, the net would be void and without substance. The multicast transfer of ideas causes the net to grow and become more coherent. In a sense, this also applies to us. (1) Nothing is lost from (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Proper tiles (Was: Clone "semi-bricks" (Was: Non-TLG Parts))
|
|
(...) Sure, no problem, I'll get right on it. At the same time, I'll also shave the excess 1LDU off the ends of all the cross-axles, OK? ;) Steve (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Sorry I wasn't clear enough. 0 1999-12-31 SEB Minor corrections Is that better? :) Steve (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) The only problem with this for me is that I'm along for the ride because of the LDraw program and not necessarily for LEGO. I know they are pretty closly related now, but that may not be completely true in the future. James program is amazing (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) If there are any other creations out I for one would like hear of them. (...) Hmm, I never mangle I improve :-). (...) I've tried a number of different methods, but none seemed to fit the bill. Roy (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Maintenance Idea
|
|
(...) Is this done? I guess I thought that once a number is used, it's used up. How does LDAO part update function deal with this? (By the way, yet another awesome addition to LDAO's usefulness. I've just been using it a bunch to fix models I did (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Clone "semi-bricks" (Was: Non-TLG Parts)
|
|
(...) DUPLO bricks have definitely more rounded edges than regular bricks. Would you want to model those edges or just make it look like a giant system brick with empty studs? --Bram Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) 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 -- (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Organizing the Site Revamp)
|
|
(...) It's Ldraw _+_ the dos tools. so the dos tools are 200k (...) same for this - 2.3 meg ldraw 'n' stuff, rest LDAO. Jasper (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-TLG Parts
|
|
(...) LOL :) Though I would support one of those (if necessary) and plaster the 'pure' image on my site if the condition of the clone parts sunk to that level.. *sigh* -- bad week.. [1] [2] [1] Not at all related to this list, but was a general sigh (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Organizing the Site Revamp)
|
|
(...) Which DOS tools are these? I don't remember any being particularly large... (...) Same for this... LDAO is 2.something Mb, right? What's the rest? --Bram Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com ---...---oooo-----(_...o---...--- WWW: (URL) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Uber-install (was Re: Organizing the Site Revamp)
|
|
(...) I like Wise very much. I don't *think* I've used InstallShield, maybe I tried once. Anyway, I know I don't want to try it. I've mostly used Wise to package VB apps, but it works really well, and very easily. With the new version, I just point (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DOS Makelist (was Re: Uber-install (was Re: Organizing the Site Revamp))
|
|
(...) I'd guess the limitation is because James allocated a 1000-element array to hold the data lines. The problem I ran into when I tried a rewrite was I was using a shareware version of Basic, which wouldn't support the memory usage I needed, so I (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Uber-install (was Re: Organizing the Site Revamp)
|
|
(...) I agree. (1) (...) You've done this before, haven't you? Man, what a headache. :-P This is why I don't write the install code at work. I have learned one thing: avoid avoid avoid InstallShield! How do you like the Wise install tool? Would it (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DOS Makelist (was Re: Uber-install (was Re: Organizing the Site Revamp))
|
|
(...) Why the limitation on 1000 parts? Have all the makelist implementations shelled out to call sort.exe? I'm sure there's a quicksort call in the ANSI C libraries, and stl has some great capabilities for those of the C++ persuasion... (...) Well, (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
