 | | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
It's not an update. It's an A/B version thing--Tile 1x1 Old Style, Tile 1x1 New Style. Steve (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) In this case, I say use the number stamped on the part. (...) Did we decide to move away from the xxxxPxx format? This sounds like a good reason to rethink that decision. Not that I expect this particular element to ever resurface in a (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) Damn. They noticed. After the chrome antenna fiasco, I swore to keep my mouth shut, and not point out potential part-number mixups. Actually, I forgot all about that little trivial bit of part-numbering reality on the obviously (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) I think that this part is OK. I haven't done a detailed check. (...) It was. Richard actually went through some trouble to get that part correct. That's how I know what I know about the fix I suggested (in a different message): Richard went (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: concave polys and LDraw
|
|
(...) Someone (sorry, I totally don't remember who) suggested that you can generate an optional line between two poly's (pollies?) by using the center-points of the poly's as the test-points (points 3 and 4). I don't know how well this works, but (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) No winky needed. It's a very valid point. I definitely thought about making the lettering raised for the coins. Then again, I was also thinking to myself "why am I wasting time on these useless, decoration-only parts when I could be doing some (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) The best measurements are against other lego parts. The ruler is a fall-back for odd-sized bits. Steve (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) I disagree with the first sentence (as I've said). I don't have this part, so I can't give any detailed feedback on the accuracy of the part-file; I must stick to generalities. An easy way to fix this part (enough to earn the coveted 'needs (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Quality of authored parts
|
|
Perhaps this would be a good time to have a discussion of standards for authoring new parts--separate from any particular parts or authors. How realistic do you think parts ought to be in order to be considered for inclusion in the official L-CAD (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) oh yeah.. i just meant 10 minutes to do one and see how it looks... doing all of the tiles in our catalog would be at least an 11-minute job ;) J (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
