 | | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) i have fixed it because i built kings mountain fortress on the part and all the studs are in place (...) it was a small oversight on my part. even if i had the part in front of me then i still could have missed the stud (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: baseplate
|
|
Would that be the space-baseplate? (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) Well, to be honest, I just want to get a firm consensus on the best way to number these things. Something that will (hopefully) be agreable to the majority of users. Something I can use without greying too many more hairs. The real problem is (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
I recall hearing once that the chrome parts had to be made from a different mold than non-chrome parts because the coating added some thickness. So on the chrome version, e.g. the plastic studs would be a little smaller. Also, I'd expect molds for (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Java LDraw/LDLite
|
|
WinCE's java support is really very poor. -gyug (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: My proposal for new element orientation
|
|
That won't work all the time. In the L3G0 library, the rule was the vertical axis should pass through the center of the bottom-left stud when the brick is held such that the "LEGO" logo is right-side-up, and the bottom of the brick rested on the (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) 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: DAT voting page up
|
|
I've thought about this also. A while back we discussed adding a feature that would remember the file and line number for each pixel in an LDLite-created image. You could use this information to strip out non-visible lines before exporting to POV, (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
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: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) Yes, at the resolution of LDRAW, the logo would show up as stray pixels of high contrast, and not look good at all. But in photographs/rendering, having those logos makes all the difference in the world. It's IMHO the reason MegaBlocks always (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I am *SOOO* happy that Terry and Joshua (and others) are anal-retentive enough and pedantic enough -- and thorough enough -- to bring this sort of thing up. Just imagine what a mess it would all be if nobody cared... This is really cool, guys! (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) (Isn't it quadruple clips?) (...) Nope, it's not. Nope nope nope. Seriously, Jonathan, go buy some LEGO. Seriously. Or ask someone to snail mail you a crystal ball for heaven's sake. You shouldn't have to ask questions like this. Questions (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) 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: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) Without the actual element in front of you, how can you be 100% sure that you've actually fixed the problem? (...) Have you asked yourself why you missed this in the first place? --Todd (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) i have fixed that and send the fix to terry. also i added a missing stud at the edge next to the ramp. (...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
