 | | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
jonathan wilson wrote in message ... (...) go (...) need (...) Its precise enough for me. Since we already know that LDraw itself is not accurate, but it is precise. Roy (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
jonathan wilson wrote in message ... (...) done (...) You know, I've never looked at the bottom since you usually can't do anything with the bottom of a baseplate. Matter of fact I don't think I've ever looked at any of the real ones I have other (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) time (...) Some things to think about: It would be irritating in Ldraw to have to page through lists that look like this: xxxxx.dat Blah blah blah X blah Tr. Yellow-Green yyyyy.dat Blah blah blah X blah Gold zzzzz.dat Blah blah blah X blah (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
wht the raised baseplate: for example the "walls" of the small 4 stud area go up 3 bricks and accross 1/2 a stud area. is this accurate enough or do you need to measute with a ruler? (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) Hmmm.. well, we *could* have them all... use 30086 and 30087 as the two parts of the dinghy... then have part 4106548 simply reference the two "subparts" and have this "element model" hard-coded in yellow... anyone wanting to use a different (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
here is what i will do to my non-patterned parts. bar 7 x 3 with double clips: no changes baseplate 32 x 32 raised with ramp: as i said the baseplate has been fixed and sent. regarding the problem with the bottom doesn't the cnayon plate need to be (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) This is my vote. If 4106548 is always yellow, without exception, hard-code the yellow color in the .DAT. (but see below) A possibly more sensible alternative is to do parts 30086 and 30087 each as color 16, and do a (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
Everyone, We are facing a major problem in numbering parts in LDraw. For quite some time I have been trying to follow a 3 rule plan for numbering pieces: 1. Full accuracy when possible 2. Use official TLG numbers if we have them 3. Use temporary (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | STOP Voting!
|
|
Sorry folks, The CGI server I was using for vote processing seems to have crapped out. So until I get a fix for it, please hold off on trying to do any voting. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) Assuming they pass the vote, then yes, you can send fixes. See Jonathan? This is what happens (and will happen) when you don't have real-life examples to work from. You may think they are accurate, but you really don't know. -- Terry K -- (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
|
|
(...) 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: 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: 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: 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)
|
| |
| | concave polys and LDraw
|
|
just realized that LDraw doesn't like concave polys... so now i get to hack a test routine into MAX2DAT... anyone done one of these??? i think i have the formulas for it, so i'll give it a shot... but the 6580 wheel is done...all except for optional (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) sure. is this a serious problem? (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: Java LDraw/LDLite
|
|
(...) It's probably even easier now, with the new 2D graphics API finished (1), and a 3D API in the works. I don't claim to know how these work (or even if they're useful for anything :-) but I've seen the 2D API favorably compared to the (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
