 | | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Thank you Fredrik, for so succinctly expressing what I was feeling. I was building up a lot of frustration because I felt I had to make a loud noise in order to be heard. (...) I think the discussions should still be in the open. No consensus (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) This would work. Just don't take Steve off of the new system -- with him working on it, it's gonna be good. Cheers, - jsproat (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:qrd1yq98itn.fsf....uio.no... (...) Its not a matter of hiding the work, see below. (...) This is the case. Newsgroup discussions get noisy - people tend to have long drawn out (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GCnMwn.Axw@lugnet.com... (...) Disagree. We package the parts and put a whoppin disclaimer on them. They are not official, just compiled and made easily available. We make it clear that (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GCnMwn.Axw@lugnet.com... (...) I've only done one part so far and I've had just 4 comments (1 on an "almost done it" post, 2 on a "done it but no optional lines yet", and 1 by private (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:GCMuJ8.E5M@lugnet.com... (...) the (...) attached. (...) I think this needs a little modification - if the parts could be zipped separately then people could just get the ones they want, and as (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) That's too bad. I notice your parts, but I rarely comment on them because I'm not into those kind of parts that you model. Your parts are commonly related to minifigs, and I rarely use them. Besides, your parts are nearly always perfect (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Agree - unofficial means they may change - and if the change is to the origin or orientation then users will get (even more) upset. (...) I always do, ((URL) except maybe bug-fixes, BUT (...) ... I rarely get any comment, good or bad. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Well, when an official vote/update is announced, I'm am usually impressed at the number of new parts that I have not yet seen. So I was assuming that those parts had been submitted without having been posted, and that this still goes on. (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) It seems to me that LDraw has become a project of secrecy and inside work. When did it stop being an "open" project? When did discussions concerning LDraw cease to be done in the open? I think I missed this. I realize that whoever work with (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Most unofficial parts ARE posted to lugnet.cad.dat.parts Either that or they are available for download from the web :) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I don't think that unofficial parts should be published from LDraw. How about simply encouraging the parts authors to post their parts to lugnet.cad.dat.parts? That way, people can see which parts are in the pipeline. Besides, people can (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Winner! May 2001 ldraw.org MOTM competition
|
|
A *very* interesting race this time. Right from the start, the truck and the space station took the lead. And they swapped that lead several times. Then the truck started to pull ahead slightly..... Looking like a solid front-runner.... But as fate (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
As you can imagine, behind the scenes discussion is running fast and furious (not in the Mad sense, in the fast sense...oh never mind) The following are rambles/my opinions, not official statements of position (remember I am the nonvoting member who (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Carsten Schmitz" <casz@gmx.de> wrote in message news:GCMtBs.ByD@lugnet.com... (...) Good point, and I agree. I've gotta work out some management stuff on my own - especially this week. I'll also be lowering my standards of expectations for (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
Hello Chuck, (...) temp (...) it. (...) Yes. That is a nice idea but some of the parts dont still have pattern numbers or copyrights are missing or something like that. (...) parts (...) the (...) pre-release. (...) Hmm.. I am a parts authour but I (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
Hello Larry, Jeremy I'm following this thread very closely... and i have to jump in at this point. (...) I think Tim has waited to long to get help from other volunteers. There has been at least some people in the newsgroups and some via email (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) OK, so I lied, I guess I am a parts author of sorts: (URL) are on Tore's tracker. Feel free to include my updated heads. -Chuck (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) You might also ask the parts author's permission before including their parts in the "pre-release". Some people can be touchy about this. I'm not a parts author, so no need to ask me. -Chuck (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
I think I'll do that, if I can find the time (work in the real world's going to get pretty hectic over the next month). Thanks Chuck. -Orion (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Orion, you bring up a great idea that could solve the problem in the interum. Take all the parts you can find on Tore's tracker and in the parts newsgroup, put them in a self extracting archive or .zip file, and post the file somewhere like (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
I've been playing with ldraw and all it's wonderful part for only a short time now. What I don't understand in this discussion is what is the difference in an 'offical' vs 'unoffical' part. Apart from whewre I can download offical part what is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Ummmm.... Isn't that what the lugnet.cad.dat.parts newsgroup (or Tore's temp parts tracker) is for? You go looking for the part you want and install it. That's what I've been doing. What I wanted when I asked my original question (which has (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) The bugger here is that we could play what-if with the schedule all year long. I won't do that. (...) Why not? Aren't the users why the whole LDraw thing happens, anyway? (...) I would, but only to get it done my way -- quick & cheap & dirty. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
I mostly agree so I mostly snipped... (...) How does that help? That is, suppose it would take 40 man hours of work to resolve the bottleneck and get the new process on line and running. If that 40 hours avoids 400 or 4000 hours of user effort, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Fine, okay, you can call it what you want. The fact remains, something needs to be done. I'm making it known the only way I know how. The delay in the parts update system is becoming pretty unpopular, and it begs the question: is this being (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) It can't be "justified", but stamping one's foot isn't going to help, Jeremy, and you know that. I think what we need is an unoffical update. Package them up as unofficial and tell people to take their chances. But realise that there is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) This isn't really a matter of patience; it's been far too long than it needs to be. We need a better system. In the mean-time, the factors contributing to the delay can be addressed, and quickly. e.g. What are the factors holding back the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Sproaticus" <jsproat@io.com> wrote in message news:GCMJot.E07@lugnet.com... (...) this (...) Kinda unrelated statement, I intended it to reflect more the project as a whole. I think (and I accept that this will never be the case) that the whole (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) I'm not understanding here. The parts are available in file form in a some cluster in some repository somewhere, yes? Publishing them, even in an unofficial process, would simply consist of putting them on a server. There would be little-to-no (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:GCMIxI.BvL@lugnet.com... (...) this (...) Just sent another email to a few people about this. I hope there'll be some progress. -Tim (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
"Chuck Sommerville" <chucks@he.net> wrote in message news:GCMILA.AwH@lugnet.com... (...) I've been pushing for this inside for quite some time, with little response. Even splitting up the work for a big update among some of us who discuss LDraw.org (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Perhaps we could break the job into smaller chunks, like maybe 20 parts a week to relieve the pipeline pressure. -Chuck (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | We need an update NOW (Was: Parts Update?)
|
|
(...) Okay, this is getting ridiculous. We need a parts update. There are, what, hundreds?, of parts wasting in the pipeline. How much longer are they going to sit there? How can holding the parts for this long be justified? Give me unofficial (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Problems with reaching www.ldraw.org
|
|
Several people have in the last year reported problems with getting access to www.ldraw.org. The reason for this problem appears to be that the default "time-to-live" (TTL) for TCP packets is too low. I have now recieved confirmation that this is (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: May 2001 ldraw.org MOTM voting
|
|
hmm allright. thanks -- And they said 'Computers will never be in general use' "Terry K" <legoverse@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:GCJAG3.MM0@lugnet.com... (...) had (...) not (...) another (...) files (...) is (...) other (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: May 2001 ldraw.org MOTM voting
|
|
"I" didn't do that. According to the email that John Miller sent me, he had converted the model to DXF and imported into Bryce 4 for rendering. What exactly he converted from, or what he used to convert with, he did not specify. -- Terry K -- (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw meeting at Brickfest 2001 - Interest?
|
|
(...) ...I really think the demos aspect would be popular and fun. I'm hoping maybe we can settle into one of the classrooms upstairs and play/work in little groups on assorted concepts involved (I personally am interested in POVing LCAD stuff). I (...) (23 years ago, 26-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad, lugnet.events.brickfest)
|
| |
| | Re: May 2001 ldraw.org MOTM voting
|
|
how did you do that? so far only leocad exports obj and i couldnt find a convertor for rest of types of 3d data files bryce supports. -- And they said 'Computers will never be in general use' "Terry K" <legoverse@yahoo.com> wrote in message (...) (23 years ago, 26-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: May 2001 ldraw.org MOTM voting
|
|
(...) Bryce, or more accurately Bryce 4, is a renderer. It is a commercially available program that is very powerful, and the results are very good. A small correction here; I made a mistake - only one of the models was rendered using Bryce 4 (the (...) (23 years ago, 26-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
