 | | Modeling without the real element -- bad —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) 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 —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | 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 —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | | 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 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Roy Earls
|
| | | | | 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)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | 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: Modeling without the real element -- bad —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Terry Keller
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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: Modeling without the real element -- bad —Paul Gyugyi
|
| | | | 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Roy Earls
|
| | | | 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 —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | 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: Modeling without the real element -- bad —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Paul Gyugyi
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
