 | | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
(...) Uh Oh, we need some *unlicensed* documentation on this meta command. It's already used in some official parts. If I have to get permission in writing to use all the features of the official parts (or be liable for unspecified damages) I'm (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.mlcad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: File Header request for Minifig Parts
|
|
hi steve, (...) many thx for the hint. (...) are we takling about categories like "brick" and "plate" or sub-categories, which will need a renaming of the header? probably the fact that I just use MLCad causes some misunderstanding. I can't see a (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) WAY better than using naming to overload. 2916 and 2917 get at best a very weak association if they have train in their name. With the ASSOCIATE keyword extension it becomes quite explicit what their connection is. (and parts can also have (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) Yes. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) Hmm. Interesting idea. So part 3937 (URL) might have an entry like: 0 ASSOCIATE 3938 6134 and part 3938 (URL) might have: 0 ASSOCIATE 3937 2440 (of course, these examples capture information that otherwise might be captured by a connectivity (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) It might. (...) I can see your point. And I must admit that the first category I would search for this part under would be "Train". - Which certainly implies that "train" at least should be a keyword for the part. (...) Sort of. In principle (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) It is not my intention to control the fate of this part forever and ever. But to have some input as to how it is categorized and where it ends up in the parts list. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) I would argue that 2917 probably belongs in windscreen or window, I guess? In an ideal world there would be a way to associate a part with its "partner" as it were without using naming, there just would be a link between them somehow. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) True, but I feel this part might fall under Larry's "terribly unwieldy" escape clause. Even if he doesn't think so. (...) It's arguable at this point, but the long-term general idea is that you can do whatever you want with your original file, (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: File Header request for Minifig Parts
|
|
BTW, I found part of that discussion I mentioned in my other post. Here's the text. I don't think Terry will mind me posting it. The file I found this in is dated 7/5/2001, the discussion is possibly a year older than that. Some things are out of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | MOTM and SOTM winners for June 2002
|
|
I'm actually up to speed on this one. :-) The Winner of LDraw.org's Model Of The Month is: Sven Moritz Hein and his spot-on version of a classic 911 sportscar. Wow. Sven has a load of goodies to see on his webpage, and on Brickshelf - check it out. (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jul-02, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: Part Voting Issue
|
|
(...) By "hack", I just meant that someone could view the message page, save the HTML source to their hard drive, and modify the fields in the form to allow them to input userid and subject line. In order to use this hacked form, they'd still need (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Voting Issue
|
|
(...) Sounds good to me. If someone does hack it, we need to get it reported. Then we can disable it for awhile. Paul (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Voting Issue
|
|
(...) Yes, we would not display the destination email address, just the destination Parts Tracker userid. Good idea on the fixed subject line. Although it wouldn't be hard to hack the form, if the locking is just enforced by the HTML code. Steve (22 years ago, 27-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Voting Issue
|
|
(...) I'd definitely want the destination address locked, probably not even displayed (just the name / user code), and a fixed subject line, too eg "Review of part xxxx", to disuade people from using it for anything other than PT email. ROSCO (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Voting Issue
|
|
(...) a (...) way (...) As a reviewer, I personally would not have a problem with this. Cheers, --Ryan Amateur radio call sign: kb1fob E-mail: ryanjf@ifriendly.com Website: (URL) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: numbers report - 25 June 2002
|
|
(...) Gosh, no; I haven't thought about it at all. Steve (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Voting Issue
|
|
(...) I'm thinking of a simple system, where the PT will send an email on the behalf of a logged in user. One webpage, with just a few fields: ToUser (already filled in, maybe locked), Subject, and Message. Maybe with an "include my email address" (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | [Parts Tracker] New Parts Admin!
|
|
Some of you sharp-eyed reviewers *might* have noticed this already... A few weeks ago, Chris Dee and I were emailing back and forth, and (if I remember right) he volunteered to help with admin type duties on the Parts Tracker. Because of various (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | numbers report - 25 June 2002
|
|
"(URL) Totals 74 certified files. 152 files need admin review. <---[1] 187 files need more votes. 226 have uncertified subfiles. 121 held files. (760 files total...) [1]. Steve? Need some help? :-( Have you thought about recruiting some "jr." admins (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jun-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
