Subject:
|
Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2000 16:05:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1239 times
|
| |
|
|
"Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message
news:3A3B8FF8.95F0A8F8@centroin.com.br...
> Tim Courtney wrote:
> >
> > That's true. There should be a gradual shift in naming to 'LCAD • Organization'
> > rather than LDraw.org, etc [1].
>
> There isn't a very formal organization right now, so this shift is not
> a huge step and should happen as soon as possible.
Ok. Lets figure out if we are going to make the move (LDraw vs LCAD in the name
vote) and act on that. This doesn't necessarily mean that LDraw.org will go
away - but a new site could be put up at least for the official organization at
l-cad.org. Later we can decide whether its appropriate or not to phase out
http://www.ldraw.org (I don't think it is) and stick with LCad. But IMO, we
will always keep the LDraw domain and it will always link to the current LCAD
site.
> You mean a more formal support ? I think that any questions posted to
> the lugnet.cad.* groups is very well answered (and faster than any
> company's support).
I was thinking in the form of a common Q&A help desk at LDraw.org, so the common
questions don't keep getting asked and re-asked here. Maybe even an email
address that would email a few volunteer 'helpers' and then email the CAD group
as well?
> I think that the parts library administrator job should be split in
> more positions, we already agreed that the current voting process is
> flawed and a lot of work for a single person. I'd rather have a comitee
> that approves parts directly, for example: when a part is marked as
> "finished" in the parts tracker, regular users can add comments to the
> part and after a certain period (1 month ?), the parts administrators
> will decide if the part should be included by an "internal voting".
Good idea. Also, it would be nice to have an application written for the site
to manage the parts organizaiton when they are in limbo before an official
update.
And, does this mean parts could be introduced (officially) individually?
> That way regular users can still participate in the process (by adding
> comments) but we avoid the problem of people voting "yes" just because
> they want the part so badly that they will accept a mockup and people
> that vote only based on the website pictures.
Yeah..
> If we have a new file format for parts or models (see below) then we
> could also have a file format group.
Sure.
> > A la Artemis? I've been pushing that at random for quite some time now. • I'd be
> > elated if the programmers of the newer Windows stuff got together and • designed a
> > new format and a new editor :D
>
> That sentence was referring to the parts file format, I didn't want to
> sound rude or step on anyones toes so I tried to keep the message short.
Don't worry - I didn't see it as stepping on toes :-) I just perked up when you
mentioned the file format.
> Artemis is also a very strong point and there's no way to implement it
> with the current file format (unless we add a dozen meta-statements).
Exactly.
> My idea would be to have 2 file formats, one for parts and another for
> models. That way we can have the parts optimized for faster rendering
> and the model files will be able to have other types of information.
Good suggestion.
> If you have some free time then take a look at this file: (900 Kb).
> It's an example of a very simple animation done with LeoCAD (without any
> external programs) that cannot be saved in LDraw format because it is
> very limited. If you have LeoCAD installed you can download the source
> file at http://gerf.org/~leo/anim.lcd (10 Kb), press the "play" button
> to see it.
Cool! I just downloaded LeoCAD for the first time in a couple years, and I like
it a lot! I'd love to continue discussing features and what I'd like to see
there when I get more free time.
> The model is very simple (a car moving) but it's very easy to do an
> animation like this, you just have to set the start and end positions
> and the program calculates the intermediate information.
Nifty! :o)
> <SHAMELESS PLUG>
> Currently the program that is closer to what Artemis proposes is
> LeoCAD, it allows you to have a part appear in different places in each
> step (no sub-steps yet but it's on my todo list). If you should check it
> out I'm sure you won't be disappointed.
> </SHAMELESS PLUG>
:-)
> Now answering your question: I've volunteered in the past to
> participate in a new CAD project but nobody replied so I'll keep working
> slowly to add the Artemis ideas to LeoCAD.
Yeah. One disappointment I've found in the past is if you want something done,
do it yourself. Granted there are a few people who step up and do an incredible
job, they're hard to come by. I just wish I knew more technical schtuff so I
could do a better job at what I already do.
> > [1] I did a quick check for LCAD-domain names, and .org and .com are taken, • but
> > .net is not. If LCAD were to get a domain, we could go for a variant of • that
> > which would not be taken. (Lcad-organization.com, Lcad-org.com/net/org,
> > L-cad.org)
>
> l-cad.org is my favorite and it's available.
Someone should snag it. I will do it myself, provided I can count on donations
to make up my cost. I really can't afford to pay for the whole name myself.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
| (...) I think that www.ldraw.org should continue to exist and should focus only on things related to the program LDraw. (...) Lots of people don't read FAQs or other sources of documentation but it's worth to have them to at least help the few (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
| (...) There isn't a very formal organization right now, so this shift is not a huge step and should happen as soon as possible. (...) You mean a more formal support ? I think that any questions posted to the lugnet.cad.* groups is very well answered (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
