Subject:
|
Re: vote 9902
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:54:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
758 times
|
| |
|
|
I am truly sorry that we are going through this problem.
But LDraw is a dual purpose program. The original purpose, and one that is
still valid, useful, and needed, is that of a parts reference. A parts
reference that depends on using TLG part numbers.
And, of course, it is a modeling program. For modeling, using TLG numbers can
be useful, or at times it can be a problem. If all LDraw was was a CAD
modeling program, then we could do away with that numbering scheme.
But, In order to continue having the program serve as a parts reference, we
cannot just do away with the numbering scheme. No matter how adversely you
think it affects the program.
So that numbering scheme is here to stay. At least as long as required by
LDraw. How future programs handle the problem is unknown, and not up to me.
Hopefully, they will implement a more elegant and logical system.
I am working right now on getting those parts on "hold" released. And I am
trying my best to do it in such a way as to compromise between part referencing
and modeling. Ideally by giving the modelers what they want and need, and at
the same time ensuring that LDraw is an accurate parts reference.
-- Terry K --
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 07:59:29 GMT, "Selçuk <teyyareci>"
<sgore@nospam.superonline.com> wrote:
> So, nothing could be more clear than this example. As I said before,
> Continuing to follow TLG naming scheme causes problems. Always.
>
> Is it a nice thing to put some already done and meet the quality
> requirements parts on hold, just because they are "exactly" problem from TLG
> naming point of view? Could there be any other example which is more clear
> showing that this naming scheme influences CAD enjoyment in a very very bad
> way?
>
> Look at the situation again. We have some parts already done and we didn't
> include them to the last update. Why? Are they not satisfactory? Are they
> low quality? No. We just couldn't have decided what should be their part
> number. How...anyway.
>
> Selçuk
>
>
> Terry K wrote in message <36fb02be.7612654@lugnet.com>...
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 02:25:24 GMT, "jonathan wilson" <wilsonj@xoommail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > just got the vote! great. BUT i am curious as to why the folowing were put • on
> > > hold...
> > > the large technic hook?
> > > the knife?
> > > the harpoon?
> > > the 9v motor?
> > > i assume that the hook,harpoon and kjnife suffer the same problem that toe
> > > antenna 6h suffered in the last update...
> >
> > Yes, that is basically why. We are trying to work out a compromise between • the
> > use of LDraw as a modelling tool and as a parts reference.
> > Some number codes refer to specific-colored composite pieces. So using • those
> > numbers for generic #16 pieces would be inaccurate - thus ruining the • accuracy
> > of LDraw as a parts reference.
> > So releasing those parts as-is would cause problems.
> >
> > In addition, the knife is on hold per the authors request.
> >
> > -- Terry K --
>
>
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: vote 9902
|
| Terrel, I'm sorry that I forgotten to mention in my last message, but if has any use for anyone (from misunderstanding point of view) I never intended to blame anyone, especially you. I believe you have the one having one of the greatest portions (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: vote 9902
|
| So, nothing could be more clear than this example. As I said before, Continuing to follow TLG naming scheme causes problems. Always. Is it a nice thing to put some already done and meet the quality requirements parts on hold, just because they are (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
