Subject:
|
Re: vote 9902
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 Mar 1999 06:53:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
730 times
|
| |
|
|
No apologies are needed, Selçuk.
I understand your objections, and wish there were an easy way of fixing them.
And your English is very good, IMO. :-)
-- Terry K --
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 14:53:52 GMT, "Selçuk <teyyareci>"
<sgore@nospam.superonline.com> wrote:
> 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 with your greatly appreciated efforts in my (and our)
> modelling enjoyment. I just try to express my (continuos) objections about
> the system. This is not meaning that I believe that you were offended by my
> message, but just to clear things a little more (1)
>
> Regards,
>
> Selçuk
>
> (1) My lack of good enough English sometimes made things go bad, without a
> real cause. Just because the style that I unintentionally (or unconsciously)
> used in a post. Communicating without the help of "mimics" and
> "sounds/pronunciation" is quite a hard thing. Add not being a native English
> speaker to it..:-)
>
> Terry K wrote in message <36fb62ba.32188254@lugnet.com>...
> > 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 1 Reply:
 | | Re: vote 9902
|
| (...) I think it's not bad at all, too, but I know it has no "feeling". I mean cultural content behind the words. "Negro" means nothing bad to me, for example. Even we have a chocolate biscuit here in Turkey named as "Negro". But I've learned last (...) (25 years ago, 27-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
