 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars Elements
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <36e41df1.21257934@l...et.com>... (...) Let's see, I did the 1X4 tile with red stripes, that should be close to 100% accurate. I did the outer shell of the x-wing windscreen, and the new wing piece is about 90% complete. (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Star Wars Elements
|
|
A general question, and some comments: Question: what parts, new in the SW sets, are people working on? Do you have the Parts Tracker updated? I know JVZ has some worked up. I'm not finding anything noted as Star Wars in the parts tracker, but if (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who's got the Y-wing?
|
|
(...) John- These are not new. They are well-known, well-loved and somewhat rare 16L axles with end-connectors. Steve (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) in all honesty, all i use LDraw for... to document my creations so that i have a record before i tear them apart... the only reason i model specific elements for the catalog is because i want/need them to document a RL model (well, sometimes (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) i disagree.. i say go for it... create the end caps (i thought about doing this myself when the crankshaft discussion came up) and let's have a primitive axle cross section without end faces... then i say we integrate the primitive+end caps (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) With or without threading holes in the towball? Steve (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I'm only alright with hard-coded colors, IF they are somehow marked as not being primary parts. I would not want them all listed in as being available for building, just because it would eventually lead to parts-overload. You'd get about a (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I'll look into it. The main problems are (1) I'm not sure it can be done without rewriting the existing code, which I don't *really* feel like doing. And (2) I'm not planning on cutting a dinghy open to see what the inside looks like. So any (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) Yes, having new axle primitives would make the process go much easier. Perhaps the axle.dat file could be separated into two files: one with the end-lines, and the other with everything else. the "everything else" file would be one of the (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Vote 99-02: Page 3900
|
|
I was looking at this part some more, and wondering: are there two different versions of this piece, are does this part-file contain some serious design errors? All the RL examples of this element in my possession have a technic-stud on one side and (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) I like it. Are you suggesting we add two new axle primitives? The axle end and an axle segment without the end edges? This will surely make the process of reworking all the old axle-related parts easier. Introducing this much details will make (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I do. The parts I use the most (Technic axles, cross blocks, bushings, pins and so on), I also remember the number for. But I'm helpless without a list which can be used to look up the ones I can't remember, obviously. Fredrik (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: More parts feedback
|
|
(...) Me too. If we stick to "3873.DAT Technic Chain Tread" now, we can always add "0.6 x 2.6" later if there appears a new tread link later, can we not? (...) Out of the three, I prefer 2637.DAT Technic Axle 16 with End Connectors because the part (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Bezier Curves/Surfaces
|
|
Hi, This might be a little off-topic but I'm working on a terrain generator for LeoCAD so this still has to do with Lego and CAD. I'd like to know if anyone here have experience with bezier curves because I'd like to improve the way I'm calculating (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | technic threaded axles
|
|
according to the parts tracker page the technic threaded axle parts are done. can i please have them? (26 years ago, 7-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
onyx skrev i meddelandet ... (...) organize/search (...) If we didn't have to have compatibility with the original programs, LDRAW/LEDIT, the obvious step would be to make a database of all the parts, which would mean more effective use of the hard (...) (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: More parts feedback
|
|
Terry K wrote in message <36e0b4c1.2353492@lu...et.com>... (...) The problem with "Holes" is that it is used for many things and is only marginally descriptive. How about something like one of the following: 2637.DAT Technic Axle 16 with End Pin (...) (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: More parts feedback
|
|
(...) I agree with that. It would be a lot more sensible. And I like the original names for the Link Chain/Tread pieces. So, what do we like? with End Links / Holes / End Connectors? Or is there a nomenclature even more apt out there? -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) For now, that would be a good solution. Of course, Steve would need to split the pieces first. (...) I finally just released it as 104.dat in color 16. A compromise of sorts. The problem is, other pieces will (do) have the same problem. The (...) (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
onyx wrote in message ... (...) library (...) possible... a (...) organize/search (...) Here you miss the point that some of us don't care a flip for TLG's nomemclature. TLG has its own reason for using it that doesn't make any sense for what we (...) (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
