 | | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Probably true. Some discussion on the train related parts to establish general standards may help though, and it may make sense to do so in the context of specific parts. With respect to this one, does it at all make sense to change the name (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Hey - my first PTadmin hornet's nest !! Here's my rationalisation for changing the name, FWIW. The only comment on the part name in the review history is from Steve Bliss. No-one challenged Steve's suggestion that it should be linked by name (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: File Header request for Minifig Parts
|
|
Hi Willy (and everyone :), I mostly agree with your idea that 'minifig parts' need to be rearranged. This has been a back-burner project of mine for over a year (and it had been thought about for much longer than that). Here are some things to keep (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | File Header request for Minifig Parts
|
|
Hi folks, the other day I was flicking through the "Other Parts/M-Library" looking for the "Minifig Top Hat" and it took me quiet a while to find it 'cos there isn't any criteria in naming the different minifig parts. There are: caps, castle (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Yes. And this part has already been used in non-train sets (the Res-Q hoovercraft comes to mind). Couldn't we put "train" in the keyword list instead of in the name? Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Good point. I looked over all the parts in MLCad w/ the Train designator and found that, barring the parts previously mentioned and possibly the track parts, most of them don't even belong in that category (e.g. the doors and windows) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) Train in my view is a very narrow group. There are a very few parts that belong in it. I would refer you to the PNLTC originated "diagram of train parts" that many train clubs use to discuss how easy it is to actually get started in trains. (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) The flip side of this arguement is that while it's only use may not be just for trains, the primary use is for trains. By your argument all the parts with the word Technic and Minifig in the title should be renamed as well. The reason that (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) I agree (obviously since you referenced my post as your second ref)! (...) I disagree. That's not the intent. The license that is contemplated to be in effect does not let you as the author prevent people from submitting revisions to parts (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
I would like to object on the strongest terms possible the "Modified part description" of the part 2916.dat. This is in keeping with my beliefs on how parts should be named. Please refer to: (URL) is not necessarily a train part. Is this file not my (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | .LDR file license (Was: Description of MLCad extensions...)
|
|
(...) Larry, sorry I didn't reply sooner but I was away on vacation. I guess everyone else must be too. Anyhow, I see you got my point. The whole reason for a parts license is to prevent new part authors from asserting arbitrary demands on the (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | numbers report - 16 July 2002
|
|
Stats for Unofficial Files 131 certified files. 165 files need admin review. 176 files need more votes. 258 have uncertified subfiles. 135 held files. For comparison: 2002-07-16 - 131 / 165 / 176 / 258 / 135 (865) 2002-07-10 - 123 / 163 / 172 / 258 (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | new feature for tracker?
|
|
Steve, I've got over 300 votes in the Tracker ("(URL) it's getting a little difficult to see what files I have _not_ voted on. How difficult would it be to code a "not reviewed" search function (i.e., the Boolean opposite of the "my reviews" (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
Ahui Herrera wrote: [ please consider quoting a little bit less in the future ] (...) I disagree. There is nothing wrong with enforcing his copyright to MLCAD as well as to the specification we are discussing, but I consider any attempt to enforce a (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
(...) I'm 1000% confused and really hate to admit it. I downloaded and read the extensions file but have NO CLUE what it's for? Can someone please let me what the extensions are for? Also Michael's approach with the license agreement is *NOT* bad (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
[ XFUT lugnet.cad.dev ] (...) Hmmm... I think I would advise all authors of LEGO CAD tools not to read the documentation for the MLCAD extensions to the LDraw syntax. If anybody happen to feel an urge to implement some MLCAD compatible extensions to (...) (22 years ago, 14-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
Let me just say before I get started here that I think Michael has made a terrific contribution to this community with MLCAD. I just think he's a bit confused about the ramifications of his license agreement and I hope we can clear it up. (...) I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | numbers report - 10 July 2002
|
|
Stats for Unofficial Files 123 certified files. 163 files need admin review. 172 files need more votes. 258 have uncertified subfiles. 139 held files. For comparison: 2002-07-10 - 123 / 163 / 172 / 258 / 139 (855) 2002-07-02 - 095 / 171 / 193 / 230 (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report - 2 July 2002
|
|
For comparison: 2002-07-02 - 095 / 171 / 193 / 230 / 132 (821) 2002-06-25 - 074 / 152 / 187 / 226 / 121 (760) 2002-06-08 - 085 / 073 / 261 / 219 / 094 (732) 2002-04-23 - 213 / 052 / 236 / 180 / 098 (779) 2002-04-14 - 141 / 057 / 224 / 243 / 094 (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Numbers Report - 2 July 2002
|
|
Stats for Unofficial Files 95 certified files. 171 files need admin review. 193 files need more votes. 230 have uncertified subfiles. 132 held files. (821 files total...) (22 years ago, 3-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
