 | | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) i have fixed that and send the fix to terry. (...) i will fix this asap (...) i will not fix those (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
well... my raised baseplate is that accurate and is finished. (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
Sproaticus wrote in message ... (...) My vote would be to use the part number that people can see with out takeing apart the boat, i.e. the 30086 number. The 30087 number is only of value if you take the boat apart. Somthing I feel very few people (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) need (...) You should measure with a ruler or with lego parts (or for detailed parts people have resorted to calipers). With a plate and a brick, you can make pretty accurate measurements based on wall thickness (4 ldu), plate thickness (8 (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
Terry K wrote in message <36d5fd53.5480877@lu...et.com>... (...) seemingly (...) number (...) both (...) I thought you had to break the two halves apart to get at the 30087 number. Do you have to break it apart? If so can you use them afterward? If (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
that would be my fault. all the things that i have seen regarding the lighting bricks are wrong then terry, if the lighting bricks get in or what ever then can i send you the fix? (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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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: Java LDraw/LDLite
|
|
(...) It's surprisingly easy. Java actually doesn't suck! :) You just allocate a buffer, designate it as being a graphics buffer, and call functions to do graphics primitives. Here's an example -- not probably a great example because it's 3 years (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Java LDraw/LDLite
|
|
(...) How do you draw (pixels) in Java? Are there built-in functions, or would it require platform-specific code, or what? Or graphics library, perhaps? Steve (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: Java LDraw/LDLite
|
|
(...) Another benefit of a Java version is that it's *much* easier to write networkable apps with Java than with C / C++. Parts updates can be automagically downloaded and installed from a "parts server"; alternatively, individual parts could be (...) (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: My proposal for new element orientation
|
|
(...) This would contradict some existing standards. For example, all 2xN bricks and plates currently have the N oriented on the X axis. Under the stud-logo orientation, they'd have to all be rotated 90-degrees. Also, the stud-logo should be (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
LDraw and LDLite have the same problem, but to a lesser extent. That's why it's so important to remove the blank-face on decorated elements. Steve (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) Except the actual text-parts are done in negative-space. There aren't any drawing commands for them in the part-file. If you delete the 3004.dat reference, the text disappears (because the background shows through where text should be). Steve (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) Well, duh. Why didn't I think of that? Steve (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) Well, that all makes sense. What it needs is some optional lines, not hard-lines. No biggie. Like you said, this part goes inside the other (and as far as I know, won't attach to any other brick any other way). (...) I don't think this needs a (...) (26 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
