| |
Dave Schuler <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message
news:FLtn2z.KB3@lugnet.com...
> > Nothing would stink
> > more, IMASO[1], than seeing LEGO models sprinkled with Mega-Bloks elements
> > and that sort of thing. Wait -- OK, one thing would stink more than that,
> > IMSAO: parts libraries containing both LEGO and off-brands.
> >
> > If the parts libraries and element selection for off-brands (Mega Bloks) • or
> > compatible (Rokenbok) or totally other (Tinker Toys, K'NEX) systems could • be
> > kept totally separate from LEGO libraries, and if LEdit or MLCad worked • with
> > other scales and plastics, then, well, hey, All the more power to them!
>
> I've been trying to keep a low profile on this thread after having • stirred
> the pot at the beginning, but now that I think of it, I have a few pseudo-
> philosophical questions.
> There've been myriad discussions of the merits and shortcomings of • clones,
> as well as of juniorized "official" pieces, and the general sentiment seems • to
> be that the worst official piece is better than the best clone, for reasons
> ranging from color, to plastic quality, to basic design. All of these are
> fine, of course, and reflect personal preferences that I surely won't try • to
> refute.
> Throughout my ravings about my precious clone-DATs I've tried to make • clear
> my wish that they NOT be included in the official roster; is this what you
> mean, Todd, by your unwillingness to group clones in the LEGO libraries? • If
> so, then I wholeheartedly agree. The Official Updates should be exactly • that:
> official updates. However, I confess that I don't see the harm in using • clone-
> DATs in rendering models.
> More to the point, even though clone-DATs obviously shouldn't be part of • the
> official LDraw piece libraries, if some people want to use them, why • shouldn't
> they be allowed to? If someone rendered a particularly cool model but
> included clone-DATs, would that model be cast out for lack of purity? Some • of
> the best LDraw/POV models incorporate elements and scenery that are • distinctly
> non-Lego, such as fog, stars, and water. Even L3P allows a selection of
> "floors" which are not themselves of Lego. Should all these very useful • and,
> frankly, wonderful additions to virtual modelling be ousted?
Your mention of L3P brings up a potential problem with clone brick dats. If
rendered using L3P & POV at the highest "quality" setting, all the studs will
have "LEGO" written on them. IMHO, this would be very uncool.
A possible solution would be to create your own "CSTUD.DAT" which would
prevent L3P from adding the "LEGO" to the studs of clone bricks.
Asside from that, I guess I would treat clone bricks much like other
unofficial part files: acknowledge their existence with links, but don't
host them directly. Except that I think clone bricks should not be posted to
cad.dat.parts. An off-topic.clonebrands.dat group would be much better.
-John Van
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
64 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
|
|
|
|
