 | | Re: "Mission to Mars" Elongated Visor and "Martian" heads.
|
|
(...) Is this the cockpit part your are referring to? #30536 (URL) is currently in process... (...) Sorry, I don't have any of the others. Paul (24 years ago, 27-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Do I use Dat2AutoCAD or is there a better way?
|
|
(...) On second thought, I am working on another project in which it might be handy to have that converter. So I think I'll go with it. --Ryan (24 years ago, 26-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Advice please on DATs for bendy-arm holder 2x2 brick
|
|
I am almost ready to post dat file(s) for the 2x2 brick used to hold the bendy-arms in classic space and maxifigs. It is composed of two separate pieces which clip together (neither of my examples have embossed part numbers). My question is - should (...) (24 years ago, 26-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | "Mission to Mars" Elongated Visor and "Martian" heads.
|
|
To any of whom it may concern: I am looking for the following LCAD parts: "Mission to Mars" enlongated cockpit. "Mission to Mars" alien heads (They fit onto SW: Episode I Battle Droid torsos.) "Mission to Mars" alien legs. (They also fit onto Battle (...) (24 years ago, 26-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Do I use Dat2AutoCAD or is there a better way?
|
|
(...) Thanks for the info. I did get help about ten days ago regarding this. I ended up being able to do what I wanted all in POV-Ray. But if ever I need that utility, now I know where to get it. Cheers, --Ryan (24 years ago, 25-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Do I use Dat2AutoCAD or is there a better way?
|
|
There's a DAT2DXF converter I have. Its a bit slow for larger models, but for your application it should work just fine. Let me know if you want it -Orion (24 years ago, 25-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: Part numbers master list ?
|
|
(...) It is the same. I'm still adding things to it as I come across numbers that are not present in the list. Might be a good idea to 'diff' the nxt version against the prev one to pick out the changes. (...) Cool. Ray (24 years ago, 23-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Rebel helmet
|
|
(...) Nope, not yet. Someone has already requested it, though... (Copied from Tore's parts tracker): Wanted 2000-Aug-21 Unknown Minifig Star Wars Rebel Helmet (Luke) N/A Andrew (Please notice "follow-up" re-direct.) Hope this helps. Franklin (24 years ago, 23-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part numbers master list ?
|
|
took me a while to notice this thread (since I just subscribed to cad.dev), but here's my comments. (...) that's actually Jennifer's list, with me helping to update it... and it is updated almost daily... we combined it from a few lists I found on (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part 30183 and 30283
|
|
(...) Since it looks like a minature ships hull (mid-section), how about ... 30283 - 'Slope Brick 45 6 x 4 Double Inverted (Hull)' Ray (24 years ago, 21-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part 30183 and 30283
|
|
(...) Should the names be different? Yes and no. Both names are accurate, and I haven't thought of a *short* tag which would differentiate the names (I'm open to suggestions). Looking at these parts, I'd think 30283 should have the special notation, (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | part 30183 and 30283
|
|
I was just looking at part 30283 (a real one). Apparently there is a dat file, but it has not yet propagated to partsref. This message (URL) gives a name for 30283 of 'Slope Brick 45 6 x 4 Double Inverted' partsref lists the name for <part:30183> as (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
(...) Another thing to keep in mind: we're seeing the results of a system changing over time. It appears that TLC has changed its part-numbering strategy at least twice over the years, with some other minor adjustments occuring along the way. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee writes: <snips> (...) Correct. The actual mould number is probably the composite of the 4/5 digit number and the X-XX number (usually first appears as 1-01). I would guess that the X-XX number has to do with the actual (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
(...) This just in: there's a light gray 4x4 dish from the Life on Mars Red Mecha (sorry, I don't have the number handy). It has a part number: 3960. I guess that goes toward supporting my note of caution: (...) Steve (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
(...) 1-n (...) present (...) we (...) of (...) not (...) In the main, I think they really are part numbers, considering the total number of parts there are very few exceptions, which I think can be explained by 1) some technical need for separate (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes: <snippage> (...) All along we have been using these numbers as 'part numbers', when actually they appear to be a mould number. What we are finding here is that there are 1-n mould numbers for each 'part shape'. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
(...) p/n (...) angle. (...) is (...) Good analysis, Steve - I agree wholeheartedly - Chris (24 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
(...) Right. I'd rather have one file be a standard part file, and the other be a "shortcut" type file, meaning that the part name would be prepended with an underscore. I think we should *not* declare either the opaque or the transparent numbers to (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
(...) part (...) just (...) piece (...) no (...) piece (...) So, IMHO this makes them different parts, although at present the DAT file language does not have the capability to define textured surfaces. But, if we're making a catalog, 2507 - (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
