 | | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) hehe.. i can always count on you to be a pain, steve... :) every morning i come in here and check this thread and i can see everyone's point with equal value... i started in on this convo from the standpoint of "2 #16 parts, then aggregate (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) The axles are shorter than bricks. Comparing the 2L axle to a 2x brick, the axle comes up about 1.5 LDU short. I haven't checked the other axles, for now I'm guessing they are also 1.5LDU short. (...) I posted one a few days ago. It was the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) I'm not confusing them. But I can't speak for other people. Once we've got part-files created, we'll have firmer ground to talk from. Steve (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I wonder -- are there color-specific part numbers for the dinghy, because it is a compound element? So if we publish two sub-files, and no shortcut, we skip the whole issue. But not publishing a shortcut seems really lame. The "part" is final (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) Just to be a pain: there are existing 'glued-together' parts in LDraw with sub-files for each component part and a main short-cut file for the whole thing. Two that spring to mind are the 2x2x11 pillar and the classic 2x4 plate hinge. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) If you're talking about the yellow hands from the large people, than I'm sure that they have holes. I'm looking at one of those parts right now and it has a hole in it. Maybe there are 2 versions of this part, with and without holes. I'll (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I vote in favour of solution #1 By the way, The pink Belville dinghy exists, it was part of set #5841 As seen from the pictures in my Dutch 1988 catalogue, it's identical to the yellow dinghy . Greetings, M. Moolhuysen. (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) Are you sure about this? I mean, I don't doubt that the length of the axles is LDraw is a bit to large, but doesn't this apply to nearly all parts? Surely a 1x1 brick is smaller than 20LDUx20LDU in real life, to leave some gap between the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: patents
|
|
(...) I say go forth blindly. Just do it. If they get upset, then we worry about it. I would be more concerned if we were talking about Star TREK elements, since Paramount is well known for trying to squash anything they can't profit from. -- Terry (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote 99-02: Page 3900
|
|
(...) Good point. All I have is ones as you described it - no holes/one stud. Somebody speak up on this so we can get it straightened out. Until I get a good answer, this part is on hold. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) The problem is a bit more narrow than that. Basic pieces, like the 1x2 brick, are not affected by all this numbering/coloring controversy. Those pieces had a simple part number that is common to all the colors. So we would NOT be having (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) 1. Understood. 2. That's a given. I don't really expect to see detail. It is not something that would be a requirement, IMO. (...) No idea. It was news to me. Joshua might know something about it, but he never mentioned that one to me. (...) I (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) that (...) possibility (...) question (...) great point.. and well thought-out... hmmmm... okay... so then as i see it we have two options.. #1 (my preference, since this is how we handle two halves of every hinge, wheel-tyre combo, etc.. (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: patents
|
|
(...) 1) TLG knows about LDraw. 2) One or more LEGO employees read this newsgroup/mailing list. Steve (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
onyx wrote in message ... (...) you're (...) don't (...) the (...) that (...) basic (...) to (...) LDraw (...) that (...) i (...) You've got my support here. I don't care to use LDraw as a TLG reference ...just wanna model. We need to follow the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | patents
|
|
be verry careful about making TLG aware of ldraw because they have probobly patented lego (or at least parts of it) and if you tell them about ldraw then they may find a way to get you for patent ifringement. (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I agree wholeheartedly... The point I tried to make earlier, was that it seems that by giveing seperate part numbers to the part, TLG is leaveing open the possibility in the future to release a part that is in two SEPARATE colors. So, my (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote 99-02: Page 3900
|
|
Ah, I see what caused my problems and confusion. For some strange reason, it's not considering this below as part of the header, and therefore thinks it should reply back to you ... Now all I need is a better mail client. :) I've CC'ed this to the (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) I've never seen holes, though that doesn't mean they're not there. :-P (I'm 99% certain that the original, used-for-hands elements, didn't have the hole). FWIW, the instruction scans on kl.net are very high quality, well enough to see that the (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who's got the Y-wing?
|
|
Well I'll be darned. Based on the pics, I was certain these were going to be a shorter version of the axle with end connectors. -John Van Steve Bliss wrote in message <36e416ba.19410902@l...et.com>... (...) engines (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
