Subject:
|
Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:33:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1660 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) writes:
> "jonathan wilson" <wilsonj@xoommail.com> wrote:
> > i do not accually own any lego.
> > i am excusivly ldraw.
>
> !! 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 believe that
> you could do a credible job of recreating a complex piece in LDraw without
> having the actual piece to guide you.
>
> This makes me seriously question the accuracy of all the parts you have
> submitted.
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
exception, right?)
Terry: Is that correct? Is there not currently a rule against submitting
parts that have not been painstakingly measured from a real element?
I think you should flat-out reject all parts submitted by people who haven't
measured the dimensions and haven't worked from an actual element. It's just
wrong to model them without the real element in front of you.
If Jonathan has the energy to model parts, but not the will to purchase them,
then perhaps we can send Jonathan parts via snail mail. IMHO, no one should
be working blind.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 years ago, 25-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 (...) (25 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
42 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
|
|
|
|
