 | | 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)
|
