 | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Great, I was mostly just testing the grounds. I wouldn't actually vote for a solution like this. (...) While this idea would unify many elements, I don't think it's a good one. After all, the technic bricks with holes or axleholes (or pins!) (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
I think the parts that go in the Round category should be more for just locating things that you would first think of as round, such as dishes and cones. For example, pieces like these (...) I would not first think of as round. Regarding your list, (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
I've put together a list of possible candidates for the new Round category, and how I think they should sort out. I've included three groups of parts: 'Put in Round', 'Not Sure' and 'Probably Not', to match how I feel about them. I excluded parts I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I agree with that. (...) After thorough research (I googled 'liftarm', and found mostly legofan sites), I've come to the conclusion that 'liftarm' was made up by somebody, and is only used to describe Lego elements. I'm guessing that either (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) My personal opinion is that the liftarm category in LDraw is way too wide. I'm not quite sure myself what a "liftarm" actually is in the English language. But my understanding from LEGO is that a liftarm is a rod or a beam with a cross axle (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I agree. Let's hope we can agree on a priority! (...) I thought both these would fit OK into the "liftarm" category, as that's how they'd generally be used. ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I think this sounds like a sensible approach! (...) You mean something like 2637 Technic Axle 16 with Axleholes 2739 Technic Axle 6 with Ball Joint Sockets I am a bit ambivalent about this. The rods in question are axle shaped, however they (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I agree totally. A very important point. I'm ambivalent about the resolution. My *first* reaction is that we should leave existing parts mostly alone, unless it is very clear that they should be moved. My second reaction is that I'll go along (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Good point. I support that change. (...) Jacob (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) This is a good and important point. If the category "round" is to take the same functionality as, say, the "slope" category, it would be more correct to rename existing parts into Round Plate 2 x 2 Round Brick 2 x 2 and so on. After all, slope (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Excellent idea. (...) Not bad. What do we do about <part:4032> (Plate 2 x 2 Round)? Is "plate" or "round" most important? I presume that we should stick to the current name and add "round" as an extra category. A similar question concerns (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Yes. I'm guessing (based on past experience) that it won't be the next parts update (2002-01), but maybe the one after that (2001-02). But who knows? If we get three part reviewers who decide to work together to change the part names and post (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote: 8< [snip] (...) I think it is a "well-rounded" idea. It would make the lists easier to search (esp. for newbies). Similarly, Franklin Cain had suggested a year ago reworking the Castle and Space categories. Will that be happening (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BricksWest 2002 Registration Re-Opens
|
|
(...) I'm glad I wasn't the only one - although it looks like I finished 5.5 hours earlier than you. Steve (23 years ago, 2-Jan-02, to lugnet.events.brickswest, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
Hi y'all! Yes, this is Steve, once again geeking on the parts library organization. :) We've currently got a group of parts labeled 'Cylinder'. See (URL) for a list of the parts. But there's a problem: not all of these parts are actually cylinders. (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDRAW.ORG access?
|
|
[ XFUT lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw ] (...) I can connect to your mail service from "ldraw.org" without problems. If you use some kind of Microsoft operating system, then that might explain your problem. There is (afaik) an error in the standard network (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | ldraw.org's MOTM & SOTM Winners for December 2001
|
|
Happy New Year! Hard to believe it's 2002 already.... The December winners in LDraw.org's Model & Scene Of The Month are: Anthony Sava - "Imagination Takes Flight" for the MOTM. Carsten Schmitz - "Diver's Treasure" for the SOTM. Great work by both. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jan-02, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Tutorial Subject List (was: Re: The LDraw Community is what each person makes it)
|
|
Don Heyse wrote in message ... (...) OK, that worked (putting it in the same directopry as the file I was working with). Not quite as convenient as it could be, but still better than adding lines to the dat file between MLCad and LDLite. Thanks for (...) (23 years ago, 30-Dec-01, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Tutorial Subject List (was: Re: The LDraw Community is what each person makes it)
|
|
(...) Right now it only looks in the current directory. Depending on how you launch ldlite this may be the directory with the main model file. Since this isn't as useful as it could be, I'm sure it'll be changed in a future release. There was some (...) (23 years ago, 30-Dec-01, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Tutorial Subject List (was: Re: The LDraw Community is what each person makes it)
|
|
Don Heyse wrote in message ... (...) Yes, MLCad complains when you have a line like this in the file. It does still load the file but it chucks out the line when you save the file in MLCad. So if you're going to use this with MLCad you'll need to (...) (23 years ago, 29-Dec-01, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
