To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldrawOpen lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / *1651 (-10)
  Re: LDraw.org MOTM & SOTM submissions
 
I have like crappy scene. It's really nothing. Nothing useful. You want it? -Mike (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
 
  LDraw.org MOTM & SOTM submissions
 
Um Hello.... Anybody out there? It's getting close to the cut-off date for submissions to the Model Of The Month and Scene Of The Month. (23rd of each month) I need entries. Please. I currently have 3 model entries and zip, zero, nada for scene (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) ! 
 
  Re: New style of part file 3941 vs. 6143
 
(...) nod, I understand. (...) Yep, that's a possibility. (...) That's what I'm wondering. Steve (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
 
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) [snip] (...) Do you have the *right* numbers for these elements? Steve (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
 
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) Hmm. I think a parts database, that tracks multiple (hopefully, *all*) names for each part, would be a very good thing. Steve (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
 
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) "...fellow in most every respect, although _my opinion differs very strongly with his_" would be my preference. SURELY you don't see this as objective subject matter? (...) I'm pointing out the argument from the majority position here. I've (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
 
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) Not what I meant. James had the number wrong. That's not the number for that element. (...) I've never seen an element numbered 2881, James had that one wrong too. But that's my name for that element. It's served me well for the 8+ years I've (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
 
  Re: New style of part file 3941 vs. 6143
 
(...) No, sorry - the bulk of this research was from (a lot of) miscellanous parts in my spares box, and I cannot be sure of the providence of many of my made up sets, so any info from them would be near worthless. (...) Unless problems with the use (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
 
  Re: New style of part file 3941 vs. 6143
 
(...) I guess it does! I've got some comments below, but for now, let's stick with the two documented part numbers. If someone wants to create these non-functional variations of the part(s), I'm ok with that. But let's not get into xxxxA, xxxxB, (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
 
  Re: New style of part file 3941 vs. 6143
 
(...) A brief investigation of my spares reveals a more complex situation. There are variations in three regions of this part 1) The ribs between the inner cylinder and the rim: 1A) no ribs 1B) small rectangular ribs 1C) larger triangular (rocket (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR