 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) If the matrix for the box5 inside the part is inverted, wouldn't it work ? Leonardo (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
Leonardo Zide <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:38E9EDA0.2C97D9....com.br... (...) Meaning we (...) It's not just a matter of knowing that a part is "wrong" and fixing it. The problem is primitives where either the inner faces or the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) That's why I droped out of the BFC discussion a long time ago, we are making this a big issue with proposals for a new extension when we could make things much simpler. If you know that a part is wrong, instead of adding a "0 INVERSE" (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) This is something that different Guild members have different opinions about. I've discussed my own views on this in the past... I tend to lean against it but others may not. My sense is that if our actions increase the number of parts (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
(...) <SNIP> Sure that is possible, I could imagine having a seperate tool for this, or even implementing it as a helper-function inside MLCad which does something like a BFC conversion. This solution would definitly be a better aproach. Michael (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
|
If you 're able to correct wrong things in a model so BFC can be used, is it than not possible to make a program that goes over al your parts once and corrects all the parts so that all your models will be automatically correct? Michael Lachmann (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Some Words To BFC
|
|
Hy, I finaly got internet-access here, and could follow the discussions about BFC. Some words I would like to say first: I think it doesn't make sence to blame Steve about BFC stuff, since I asked him if the spec is in a state that we could try it. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) Nice sets you have created there, where can I get the dat files? Regards John (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
So, this is a good time to re-iterate the purpose of the Gnu Public License (GPL): it makes gratis stuff stay gratis. Even more importantly, if you word it correctly, you can force anyone who creates an element that uses stud.dat to release their (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
Just a thought.. I noticed that Jonathan B. Knudsen has released rendered instructions for some (all? not sure) of the robots from his book: (URL) Jonathan 'influenced' some decisions to make a few parts for his use in his book. Of course these (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Identifying connections (Was: L3PLiTE?)
|
|
(...) I first thought about adding all kinds of connections but the studs are the most useful for modelling and polygon reduction (unless someone wants to write a full forward kinematics simulator). The studs are the most easy connections to check (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) I have to agree with John and Tore, all the parts/software I wrote in the past were done without expecting to get anything back. I don't want to be rude but we are fine doing everything for free and I'd like to keep things that way, I know (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) I hope this works because this will finally get some of those castle decorated elements I have been wanting for ages. (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
|
(...) This might be the encouragement I need to dive further into parts development. However, I would need to have a copy of the part, and I doubt I would be able to work on anything too complicated right away (ex, no (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
|
(...) No, it isn't. BUT, there is very little functional difference between what is currently written and the suggestion above. As far as the function of a rendering engine is concerned, there is no difference -- if a file doesn't specify the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
