Subject:
|
Re: LCD - LDraw Connection Database - Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:46:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1265 times
|
| |
|
|
Dears,
thank you for the enthusiasm you are accepting our idea with. In the
case you are wondering where did we take it from, here is the
explanation. Some months ago I begun to play with Lego CAD softwares,
liking to build with them, but I haven't too much practice in CAD at
all, and absolutely not with Lego CAD. It was a little tiring to make
a Technic model, and it didn't look perfectly, not having correct
connections -- and I couldn't play with it! Why did I build it then?
:) So I started my brain and LCD popped out.
First of all, a technical problem about Lego: I haven't any, my only
real plastic Lego is a small black minifig. Because of this, you can't
ask me about sizes, angles and other things about real parts. But away
from this, I'm here for all your questions and comments about the LCD
idea.
If you see this mail, my other technical problem is finally solved:
it took several days of courting around the server to make my messages
accepted...
> (Their example "minifig waist" probably should be "minifig wrist"
> as it talks about the pin on a hand that fits into the lower end
> of an arm... that seems wrist-ish to me...
Yes, Larry, this was my fault coming from the bad English. Thank you
for your correction.
> A note worthy of some serious consideration, I got a priavte email
> from Jude Beaudin, who suggested the name might infringe on LEGO's
> interests. He suggested the project be renamed to 'LDraw Connection
> Database' instead,
Thank you, Tim, and thanks for Jude to make us able not to infringe
them. So, up from this point, I will be referring to it as LDraw
Connection Database, even changing it in the posting subject.
> Is it restricted in applicability to just LDraw parts? (that is, if
> there were a competing parts format, could the idea be applicable?
No, Larry, it isn't restricted to any format. It is an idea, nothing
more. It isn't copyrighted and there is no restriction on how or where
to apply it.
> If it's not restricted (and I think it's not) then I don't see using
> LDraw in the name. It DOES get around using LEGO(r), but that isn't
> necessarily bad, is it?
Well. These connections are existing in Lego, truly. But Lego is a toy
made from plastic, and being that, it doesn't need any database and
software assistance to be connected. Only LDraw and other softwares
need such assistance to be connected, therefore LCD doesn't belong to
Lego as closely as to LDraw. Having this in sight, we changed the name
to LDraw Connection Database, both authors agreeing in that.
> I think that the list of connectors/connections needs to be expanded
> from what is shown here.
Matt, our document is a very small draft. It describes only some
selected connectors/connections, and the descriptions aren't as
realistic as they need to be in practice. It will be the second task
to collect information about connectors and connections and describe
them in a really usable form.
> However I don't see the authors as having stated that they were
> definitively correct in the examples they gave, they were trying to
> lay groundwork for an approach.
Yes, Larry. What we've created isn't a meal. It's only a menu card.
> Another example of potential insufficient connectability language
> richness has to do with depth of the female end. For example, the
> minifig hips. These have special studs which are more than the
> normal height. If we do not distinguish between plate and brick
> "depth" in the connector type we do not have a way to tell that
> these hips WILL plug all the way into a brick but will only PARTLY
> plug into a plate (similarly for the double height studs on
> "monorail" stanchion bases)
Thank you! Here is a point where I hadn't enough information. A Stud
Inlet connector, observing this way, may have one of three depths: 1.
plate depth, 2. brick depth, 3. infinite depth (on sides of the fence,
part 3185).
And also the male part, Stud, may have one of two depths: 1. standard
stud height, 2. double stud height. Connecting a plate to a standard
stud will result in a different distance between the parts than
connecting the same plate to a double height stud.
> Slightly tangentially, I thought of another kind of connectivity
> descriptor: "tightness" or whether it's a gripping connectivity or
> merely a restraining one.
I believe here you found something new again, at least for me.
Obviously, it was very long ago (some 15 years) when I played with
Lego in reality. KACS has some sets now, too, but I don't...
*
Well -- what to do now, that is the question. In my humble opinion,
the most important thing about LCD is to complete it. It's a draft
only yet, far from being finished. We mustn't expect any software
developer to start working on an implementation of an unfinished idea.
So I would like to call everybody for contribution. There are two
kinds of contribution: new ideas and data. Some new ideas are written
already, as the connector depth and the tightness. These will be
included in later releases of the LCD document. Groups of needed data
is mentioned in the document: the list of connectors and connections,
with properties, and the CDL file drafts.
La'ng Attila D., iro <lad@rentahost.net> <http://lad.rentahost.net>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LCD - LEGO Connection Database - Proposal
|
| (...) Well I think that would be a good thing, I was under the impression that the goal of LCD was to allow modelling programs to help the user properly *place* the parts, not ness. remembering the connections. But maybe I'm missing something. If (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
80 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
