Subject:
|
Re: What would you want in a new LEGO(R) CAD System?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jan 2000 13:09:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1020 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tore Eriksson writes:
>
>
> Farlie A wrote:
>
> > The new system would try to integrate the following:
> >
> > Scripting for parts (LDS)
>
> Using LDS Syntax as is or modified is OK with me.
Intention was to use a more VRML like syntax.
>
> > Fixing of hinge problems(ie Rotation partway through scene.)
> >
> > Based on that I came up with some VERY rough ideas for a new System called
> > BrickCAD2000.
>
> I recall BrickCAD as used by a person that was contacted by lawyers from TLG
was more or less forced him to abandon the project.
> It is possible that TLG will not tolerate a new L-CAD system the way they • appearantly accepts LDraw. I mean striking
> down on LDraw with its popularity would be very negative PR, but stopping • something in its beginning is less contoversial.
>
I had choosen the name BrickCAD because the system had uses in genuine
construction CAD, not just LEGO(R).
Besides the name BrickCAD has no generic connection to Lego(R). Other than the
use of parts designed by LEGO( which SHOULD be protected from theft, like any
other industrial design) I can't see any issues with a new CAD system. other
than the previous program called BrickCAD with which I have a NO connection.
Parts are seperate issue from a CAD Engine. Cracking down on a CAD engine just
because it happens that it can be used for Lego(R) is non-sensical.
(It would be like a lumder merchant saying you couldn't produce a CAD system
for his timber lengths!). The only concern I confusion I can see is with
AutoCAD2000, (but IntelliCAD2000 exsits) or with the original BrickCAD.
Besides the main aim of the posting was to start disscusion on what COULD be
done in an ideal situation and not nessacirly on an actual implementation.
Importantly I was not trying to design or build a system as competitor to
Creator which is TLG's offical product. Indeed I would be pleased if they used
the comment in lugnet.cad.dev and this thread to develop an improved version!!
(If you are reading Brad, I'd like clarification on the issues you had over
BrickCAD).
> > Rather than using DAT Files for evrything it uses on object model
> > (Common practice in professional Architechual CAD)
> > This would also allow easier managment of updates using a registry model
> > rather than file model.- (Retain DAT Compatibilty though)
> If it makes parts authoring more complicated, I'm against! The .DAT format • has some weak points that needs refining, but
> the strongest point is the relatively low learning threshold.
Indeed an EDF (Extended DAT format) could prove to be better than a completly
new one. The Object model was intended to be internal to the program though.
> > However before BrickCAD2000 could be devloped it would be nessacry to • define
> > a new langauge and file format unfotunatly in order to cope with the new
> > features. I envisgaed something simmilar to VRML. Hence There should be a
> > langue spec first!
>
> I'm sensing the smell of a LO-O-O-ONG thread...
<AOL> Me Too </AOL>
Alex
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What would you want in a new LEGO(R) CAD System?
|
| (...) Using LDS Syntax as is or modified is OK with me. (...) I recall BrickCAD as used by a person that was contacted by lawyers from TLG was more or less forced him to abandon the project. It is possible that TLG will not tolerate a new L-CAD (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
