 | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | (...) Oh, sure. All parts that go into the updates go through a peer review process, then the collection is assembled by Terry for distribution. Even assuming the non-Lego parts survive the voting, all that would be needed is policy on Terry's end (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) I considered modeling some K'Nex pieces in LDraw. There aren't that many different (useful) K'Nex pieces. But then I realized that the sizes would be all wrong for the movement keystrokes in LEdit. So I gave it up. Steve (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | (...) Agreed. I can't see it getting through the voting process, anyway. (...) view (...) Easy, boy. Non-TLG elements have their place in Ldraw. One of the uses of Ldraw is to share models, but another important use is to keep a record of your own (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | | (...) You know, I thought of this after I posted. A while ago, someone posted a Mindstorms "Rocker Boogie Rambler". (1)(2) It used MOC LDraw pieces to represent rubber bands, and those parts were inlined into the model. I wouldn't have any moral (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Clone "semi-bricks" (Was: Non-TLG Parts) —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | | | | | | Some time ago, I made some "plates", or, as I call them, 12 LDU high semi-bricks. I call them semi-bricks for two reasons: 1. They are exactly ½ the height of a Lego brick 2. They are clones, ie not real bricks I strongly oppose the idea to include (...) (26 years ago, 10-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think that was Linc (?) But he did that to represent TLG rubber bands, much the same as others have done to represent hoses. So that wasn't a case of "non-TLG" pieces. As far as message size goes, yes it does inflate things a bit, as do (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Only when the competition is (a) competent and (b) putting out superior or nearly superior stuff. If the competition puts out junk, is that an incentive to improve? Early LEGO Town and Castle sets were incredible, for example, and TLG created (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | | | Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) One man's trash... Seriously, while the piece quality of other brands is inferior, some of the sets they are offering are at least as good if not better--especially when you consider the price. I'm not saying (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) Right, but a TLG consumer affairs rep gave me the insight that the market has changed since then. The rep tells me today's child market is different, and she sees the definite change (though convenienlty doesn't call it a 'decline') in the (...) (26 years ago, 11-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) It's both. Not that I'm closed-minded, but I really have a lot of trouble imagining a competitor ever coming out with a better product in the same category as LEGO. And even if one did -- and even if the product were totally LEGO compatible -- (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | (...) I'll admit, I'm something of a Lego fanatic myself. However, I have had some very good experiences building with Tente and Construx. I wish now that I had never gotten rid of my Tente pieces. :-( (...) Hmmm... I would suggest that a (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) I thought the expectation (and specification) was that the newsserver lugnet.com was to be used for LEGO-oriented discussion and communication. The *.off-topic hierarchy is just there because we occasionally get off-track. Steve (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) Yeah... I was just being conservative/literal in my interpretation of the charter for the .cad.dat group. I think it really should be modified to say that it's for .DAT files based on LEGO-brand elements only. (Would this cause great unrest? I (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Roy Earls
|
| | | | | | (...) The only problem with this for me is that I'm along for the ride because of the LDraw program and not necessarily for LEGO. I know they are pretty closly related now, but that may not be completely true in the future. James program is amazing (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) The Internet thrives upon discussion. Without it, the net would be void and without substance. The multicast transfer of ideas causes the net to grow and become more coherent. In a sense, this also applies to us. (1) Nothing is lost from (...) (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Non-TLG Parts —Roy Earls
|
| | | | (...) Cmon, Todd, who ya sayin' cheated? (Roy hangs his head and shuffles his feet) Tell me it aint so, Todd. ( Small tear forming in the corner of his eye ) Snifff! (26 years ago, 12-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
