 | | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) the canyon raised baseplate does not have the rounded edges. (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
|
(...) my part dod not match the tlg part. (typo) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Java LDraw/LDLite
|
|
(...) Yes, definitely if as an app would you have all the files locally. I was talking about an applet that would not. You don't want to have to download the entire zip file every time because it would be fairly large. Having individually compressed (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Java LDraw/LDLite
|
|
(...) Why not serve both compressed and uncompressed versions? (...) Amen to that! Say, Greg, how's about posting the URL of your Blacktron Galaxy Explorer over in the .build group? Probably a lot of new-timers there who haven't seen it yet. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
|
(...) The curved edges are an essential part of the piece, especially when viewed in LDLite or POV-Ray. Not modeling them would be like leaving the curved edges off of the Windscreens - the edges are a highly recogizable feature of the part. --Bram (...) (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
