 | | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) ^^^ I avoided using this word in my posts on the subject for fear I would spell it just like this, which of course is another word for dirty :-) Good points in your post, though. -John Van (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
Since I am not an LDraw part developer (although I did try my hand at one part), I will add my $0.02 to the fracas and be done with it. This outlook is based upon my knowledge of engineering documentation systems in the real world. With that said, (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) It seems to me that the only reason on TLG's part to have 2 seperate numbers and then one different aggregate number for a specific color is to provide for a situation in which the two pieces are different colors (ie: black top, yellow (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <36d6f2f0.17111521@l...et.com>... (...) Is the soccer ball part spherical with printed pattern, or does the physical part consist of hexagons and pentagons like a real soccer ball? -John Van (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) Accessory pack #5131. Steve (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
