 | | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
The reason why I haven't responded to this thread earlier was the complicated language that kept me from fully understanding what the point is. What I now understand about the guild is: * You are fueled by frustration over the juniorisation of (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PLiTE?
|
|
(...) It should be not only flexible, but also generic ! by this I mean, don't assign relations with actual parts to define the connection types. Try to define the physical/mechanical property, and not particularities in some uses. (...) So these (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
As you know, I tend to see *everything* in terms of paying for it, or at least motivation, at any rate. I think John raises some good points and I don't have answers, but I do have some musings. (...) You made those parts for your own reasons, which (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PLiTE?
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:h5chescbu4k2ib5...4ax.com... (...) Speaking of minifig arms... Does the minifig modeler rotate the arms around the x axis? Or does it rotate on the angled axis that actual minifig arms (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message news:FsEvqJ.1pI@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) designing (...) with (...) done (...) "paid" (...) to (...) pay (...) benefit (...) I see both plusses and minuses to such an arrangement: Plusses: 1. (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) Oops, I'm responding in public. Oh, well. I think my comments are fodder for the public, anyway. Jonathan Knudsen has already shown that it's possible to get parts drawn on request. I know he got at least three respondents, probably more. And (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Type-5 conditional edge line
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Fredrik Glöckner wrote: [snippety] (...) Yes, your conditional line should be fine. When the triangles are viewed like: 4 /|\ / |.3 / .| /. | 2----1 points 1 and 3 are on the same side of the 2-4 line, so the conditional line will (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) followed by silence from everyone else. Wrong group? Drop me a note if you think I should have posted this somewhere else... Thanks! The charter for cad.dat.parts didn't quite seem to fit. ++Lar (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: What is BFC meta command ? [DAT]
|
|
(...) The best thing to do for now is to make sure that you are writing clean code. The big difference with BFC-able files is there's a sense of 'front' and 'back' for polygons. So you need to make sure that your part files are written to (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PLiTE?
|
|
(...) I seem to remember there was a fair amount of discussion on the connections/hot-points issue. My contribution to the discussion amounted to this, more or less: Because of the large number of ways LEGO pieces can be inter-connected, we need to (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Identifying connections (Was: L3PLiTE?)
|
|
[ FUT lugnet.cad.dev ] Leonardo: (...) I think it is time to think about identifying connections. What about using an empty piece named "-stud.dat" that should be placed exactly, including orientation, where a "properly" connected stud should be (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: What is BFC meta command ?
|
|
John Jensen <skurt@vip.cybercity.dk> wrote in message news:ep26eso7d3ct4ll...4ax.com... (...) know what it is... (...) Then you can make your part BFC compatible by making sure that the points of a triangle or quad follow a clockwise path when the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Type-5 conditional edge line
|
|
Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:m3pus9zd3x.fsf@...ldomain... (...) It looks good to me. I'm pretty sure this is how it is done on the sphere primitives. -John Van (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: L3PLiTE?
|
|
(...) I searched my backup disks and couldn't find a version of the library with the connections information. I fixed about 100 files, making them BFC compliant and with the connection information but I lost everything after I changed the format of (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) Well I have to congratulate you for the effort ! Has always, when asked to, you provide some nice output! ;) So now let's discuss it. Just reply to my previous replys to "LITS 2" mails. I have to say, that I'don't actually have time know to (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I believe that the only problem is that these matrixes can't be inverted ! I'not sure if placing a one on the specific place has exactly the same graphic behaviour ? can someone confirm ? (...) Use my proposal: 0 CERTIFY BFC MTX where MTX is (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I have to read this better to make an opinion, later ! (...) Now you don't like local clipping anymore ? too or tree mails before you were in favour or am I mistaken ? I should we make complicated spec for clipping, just because of one stupid (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
I read the current proposal, and I have this to say: I don't agree with the following paragraph when an entire branch has to have cliping on to be able to be culled, don't think so. ( I know about the invert case, solution required ) 4 Control of (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) I agree with the default from the start, I proposed them, somewhere ! (...) Agreed! but that's NOT currently written that way, is it ? (...) NO it is NOT ! read on. (...) I know that the branch only would be required, but I don't agree with (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
As you know, The Guild of Bricksmiths, (URL) a big user of LDraw compatible tools, since Guild members are producing instructions for almost all of their kits. From time to time a Guildsman runs into a part he or she would really like to use in a (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev) !
|
