 | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
|
(...) Hmmm, interesting thought. I'll have to think it through some more. This would give us figures like: Angle Rise:Run 10 1:6 18 1:3 33/27 1:2 45 1:1 45 2:2 53 3&1/3:3 55 6:4 (not yet released) 65 2:1 75 3:1 Hmmm. Off the cuff, there are two (...) (23 years ago, 17-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally...
|
|
Lutz Uhlmann wrote... (...) Good to hear you're back in business... I hope you are planning to update the format of L2P_ELMT.TAB, see (URL) current format is inadequate for a conversion table between DAT filenames and LGEO filenames: It only uses an (...) (23 years ago, 17-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
|
(...) Steve, I'm thinking it would be of more use to name the parts using a "Rise/Run" method, like in architecture. When using the LEGO pieces the important thing is not the actual angle on the sloped face, anymore than it is the actual height, (...) (23 years ago, 14-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
|
(...) :) Or a comment line in the base-part file, noting the proper orientation for decorations on the slope-face. Steve (23 years ago, 11-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
|
"James J." <jejackso@memphis.edu> wrote in message news:GBHo7t.911@lugnet.com... (...) According to the "Lego Dimension Guide" I have that was created by Onyx (I think) the angle is 26.565 degrees. That is what I use and it hits it perfect every (...) (23 years ago, 10-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Advice please on DATs for bendy-arm holder 2x2 brick
|
|
(...) pieces (...) No. Clipping. (...) separate (...) in (...) The composite parts have been posted at (URL) and (URL) also done the proximal bendy-arm part to be used with these holders (URL) send the separate parts files to parts@ldraw.org Chris (...) (23 years ago, 10-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
|
(...) Ouch. Now that is some number. I looked it up in both the Windows Calculator and AutoCAD 2000 (expanding tolerance out to the smallest decimal -- hundred millionths) to find out the your large figure rings true. (...) *huff, puff* I'm inclined (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
|
This problem has (probably) been realized by a number of people in the last few years; I figured it out (or was it pointed out to me?) a few months ago. Yes, I am planning on doing a mass name-change, but after the automated Parts-Tracker is up and (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
|
Greetings. I have made a new discovery that may seem all too obvious to everyone else who has actually programmed elements in LDraw or MLCAD. My discovery is as follows: All bricks listed as having a 33-degree slope are not named with correct (...) (24 years ago, 8-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally...
|
|
It's great to have you back, Lutz! Your LGEO library is an invaluable resource for the community and has personally been a major part of my interest in Lego. I look forward to its further development. Thanks and welcome back! (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Finally...
|
|
(...) Welcome back, Lutz! Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Finally...
|
|
Hi all, finally I have moved, nearly all thing have been done, except de-dusting my LEGO-models and placing them all around our new home. I have collected all mails regarding errors and problems with the LGEO parts and will fix it and bring a new (...) (24 years ago, 3-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: New "calculator" for parts authors. ( for windows 95+, nt?)
|
|
Hello, I have made a few updates(bug fixes) to the calculator. Anyone wanting to update, or try it out, please do! You may download it from my Utilities web page. (URL) are several pictures on that page, so it might be slow to load. Please email me (...) (24 years ago, 1-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Library License
|
|
Works for me :) (24 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Library License
|
|
(...) I am happy with this - Chris (24 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Library License
|
|
Sounds good to me. /Tore (...) (24 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Parts Library License
|
|
Here's what I hope to be the final version of the license. Let me know if you have any comments, if nobody wants to change anything it will become the official license (that's why I'm cross posting to several newsgroups). ===...=== LDraw Parts (...) (24 years ago, 28-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Advice please on DATs for bendy-arm holder 2x2 brick
|
|
(...) Do the pieces move or rotate against each other? How are they attached: glue, weld, clipping, or something else? (...) LEGO will have considered the components as separate elements, and the composite assemblies as more elements. So everything (...) (24 years ago, 28-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "Mission to Mars" Elongated Windshield and "Martian" heads.
|
|
(...) Thanks, Paul. When 30356.dat is finished it will really help me out. -- James J. "Don't just 'play well', play better!" (...) have (...) (24 years ago, 28-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Advice please on DATs for bendy-arm holder 2x2 brick
|
|
(...) pieces (...) separate (...) in (...) I can now confirm that the lower piece is identical in both versions, so, I'll try to author the alternate upper part whilst I wait for advice/comment. Chris (24 years ago, 27-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
