 | | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) !! Really? How do you expect to be able to accurately model pieces into LDraw if you don't have them? I can understand maybe real simple pieces, but some of the pieces you have attempted have been of complex forms. I find it difficult to (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) don't (...) i have been using the instructions from kl.net, catalog pictures and pause magazime set guide as ny main source of information. they seem to work. for examlpe take my raised baseplate. it is now completely fixed. i have build kings (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
Terry K wrote in message <36d4980d.635296@lugnet.com>... (...) don't (...) you (...) having (...) Geez, Terry, its all relative. I've yet to see anyone try to model the few imprinted part numbers there are. Besides, if we start getting too picky (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) i had lego when i was young but i do not have any internions to buy lego any time soon because if i got back into it it would cost a fortune. also regarding the details noone has modeled the small imprinted lego logo on parts (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) Perhaps because it would be too small to resolve clearly when rendering - and would add greatly to rendering times. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) I am not worried about part numbers on the parts. What I am concerned about is the overall accuracy of a part that is modelled from a picture. If you have followed l-cad for any time at all, you recall much discussion about part dimensions. (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
Terry K wrote in message <36d4f44c.3127860@lu...et.com>... (...) about is (...) have (...) by (...) you (...) This is certainly true, but with some research dimensions can be determined by comparison with known parts via this very discussion and (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
jonathan wilson wrote in message ... (...) on (...) Some POV Ray libs can render the logo on the studs and round the edges of the bricks, but I usually render without these, mainly because my renderings will never likely be that close up, but also (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) You know, these wouldn't be so hard to do... I've already made files with line-drawings of all the numerals. Just need a hyphen, and (I think) an L and R, and we're good to go. Steve (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <36d579c3.1627208@lu...et.com>... (...) The point here would be that line drawings would not be accurate since the part numbers I've seen are raised and moulded as are the lot numbers and some even have copyrights (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) It's not *that* hard to go from the line drawings to raised forms. Especially since each numeral only needs to be done once. That LEGO logo and copyright notice, now. Those are a whole different level of challenge. Steve (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <36d5afa3.15421162@l...et.com>... (...) Okay, I see that I was shooting for a kill and all I got was a dent. My point was to be made by what I'm calling the lot number, it may be the position number of the part on the (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) that (...) haven't (...) just (...) them, (...) should (...) There are some exceptions to an otherwise good rule. For example, the new Technic Link which appears on the Y-wing. If I find out from someone how (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote (...) that (...) haven't (...) just (...) Any station this net ... any staion this net ... is this thing working? Can anybody hear me? Darn thing must be on the blink again. Any station this net this Romeo Oscar Yankee. I say (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) Indeed. In fact -- and maybe I'm reading too much into this -- but I'm surprised that there isn't a strict rule against submitting parts that have been modeled without having them in front of you. (Mock-ups noted as such being a valid (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
regarding my raised baselpate it is now (in the version i sent to terry last night) it is now mabie only 3-4ldu out maxumum ,if that, the fix adds a stud along the bottom of the piece next to the ramp (i discovered that there was one missing) also (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
people are saying that some of the parts i have made are very complex. which ones are being refered to? i deliberatly attempted simple parts like the magnifying glass, signal holder (i pulled the face from the metal detector) etc. i attempted the (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) the (...) much (...) If you added the numbers on the bottom of the pieces (which even appear in different sizes and different spots on the piece depending on the age) you would have to model the indentation under each "solid" stud too. Can you (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
Bram Lambrecht wrote in message (...) Hear, hear. Or is it here, here. Shrug..... Roy (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) Some of the parts you sent me were representations of parts that are complex in real life. Complex meaning that they have fine details that _should_ be modeled. (...) And even those "simple" parts are deficient. The magnifying glass is a good (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) No, there is no strict rule. More of a common sense rule. But apparantly, common sense is not always sufficient. How could I possible enforce such a rule? And there would always be valid exceptions to it (see John VanZ's post) (...) Sending (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) I'm not sure how a rule like that could be strictly enforced, but you could certainly put down a foot and declare from here on out that modeling pieces blindly is verboten because they (a) cannot possibly be 100% correct except in extremely (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) Yes, at the resolution of LDRAW, the logo would show up as stray pixels of high contrast, and not look good at all. But in photographs/rendering, having those logos makes all the difference in the world. It's IMHO the reason MegaBlocks always (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
I'm quite happy to have pieces be mockups. If it is recognizable, it does the job of recording and communicating the model. IMO, perfection an LDRAW do not mix. Two decimal points? Rounding errors? 16 colors with _dithering_? Type 5 lines that may (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) What if they slip past Terry, not being noted as "mockups" and it takes someone a long time to notices that they're incorrect? (...) Does that imply that carelessness and LDRAW do mix? (...) Precision/decimal accuracy are one thing -- that's (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) I'm sure this happens all the time. A lot of the current LDraw elements are wrong, in some way. Some examples, from the top of my head: - The teeth of the Technic gear cogs are too wide. In real life, the width is 10 LDU, but on the LDraw cogs (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) Sure, but it's not like the modelers are payed to make the parts. Personally, my motivation for making a new part is the enjoyment I feel from being able to use it in a model. But, to take the part 32140.DAT as an example agian, this (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) Why wouldn't rejecting flawed parts improve the quality of the parts? It's not like they'd never get in -- they'd just get fixed right away. --Todd (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) without (...) to (...) Whoa, big boy. Calling someone careless when they are doing the best they can is pretty ... oh how did you put it... ah, yes... anal-retentive. Shall that be "mother's milk" or "milk of (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
all my parts are designed to be usable. if they are out by a large amount or are unusable then i will fix it. (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) Would using the curved primitives work well or badly (since they are just angled polygons)? Steve (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up [DAT]
|
|
(...) Hmm. We'd just make a new primitive, including the stud, the indent beneath the stud, and the ndis's around them (maybe the entire 10x10LDU surface). 1 16 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4-4edge.dat 1 16 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4-4edge.dat 1 16 0 0 0 (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) How could the TLG part be wrong? I'm not understanding this... (...) No, it isn't a good use of 'needs work'. You are talking about skipping half of the surface area. (...) No, it's not appropriate to use 'needs work' for this part. (...) Very (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) my part dod not match the tlg part. (typo) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) OK, fair enough. But I submit that someone who is modeling an element blind (without an actual copy of it to work from) is *not* doing the best they can. (...) OK, I probably shouldn't talk then. I haven't modeled any parts myself. :-/ --Todd (26 years ago, 27-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) Jonathan, I don't really want to get into the parts stuff, but could you possibly use proper capitalisation in your posts? Your posts are hard on the eyes, and that really isn't necessary. Thank you. Jasper (26 years ago, 27-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
Any Saturday Night Live fans out there? "Welcome to the, how do you say? Ah Yes, Anal Retentive Show, and I am your host Antonio Baldaraz." "See senior, you are the anal one, my friend, har ahr" <guitar> 'Is something misaligned in here?" "Oh no! (...) (26 years ago, 2-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
