 | | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Good to know! I love this place... Philo (14 years ago, 3-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Hi all, this isn't an attempt to keep you staying here. I'd just like to confirm that it's still possible to get the $10-membership which allows you to keep you signed in (no auth emails). I keep track of new members and forgotten passwords, (...) (14 years ago, 3-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Why can't that be fixed? Seems like it would solve part of the problem. (14 years ago, 2-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) That's a fair request. I'll get in touch with our friendly system administrators. Play well, Jacob (14 years ago, 2-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) People have been asking for change for years with no visible effort being put into this. I'm tired of waiting. Maybe you can try? -Orion (14 years ago, 2-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) The authentication emails have NOTHING whatsoever to do with NNTP. A properly configured NNTP server uses usernames and passwords for authentication. (And lazy b******s circumvent the authentication emails with an intelligent autoreplier.) So (...) (14 years ago, 2-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) No Allen, you can't become a member anymore. You can do the posting setup and "join" but unless you're a member you still have to put up with the authentication emails. -Orion (14 years ago, 1-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Wow, I didn't know you could still actually join Lugnet. Somehow I'd gotten the impression that process had fallen into neglect before I started posting here. So I've been putting up with those authentication e-mails needlessly all these (...) (14 years ago, 29-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Hi Anders, We've established this was just a difference in terminology - Scott was calling the "posting setup" a membership as well, which it sort-of is, but us anal geeks want everyone to use the terminology we're used to (that was used by (...) (14 years ago, 1-Nov-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Except that, for most, the web interface is the way they use LUGNET. In addition, I use a separate email client and newsreader so I'm sure there are others like me. The bottom line is that I feel that the authentication emails are an undo (...) (14 years ago, 31-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) You remember totally wrong. Anyone, member of lugnet or not, can/could sign up for posting. The only difference is that 'real' (paying) members don't have to reply to the confirmation email for each post they do. Which isn't a hassle at all, (...) (14 years ago, 31-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) As I said, I agree. And you've re-highlighted something that is not obvious, and not easy to figure out for newbies - you do not have to be a member[1] to post, something which seems to be the norm on the vast majority of modern forum sites. (...) (14 years ago, 30-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Ok, I like the discussion going on. I've setup a test forum on my own website. This won't be the final product by any means but I though I'd share what I've done. (URL) do things are theme as appropriate and figure out if I can link other (...) (14 years ago, 30-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) I think you just confirmed what I just said...after getting membership, you still can not post messages. You have to jump through another hoop (that is not obvious) with confirmation emails and the like. Call it two flavors of membership, or (...) (14 years ago, 30-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) I think you may be confused - as far as I know there has only ever been 1 flavour of membership (see (URL) And you do not have to be a member to post, you just need to go through the posting setup process (see (URL) I do agree that is a little (...) (14 years ago, 29-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Do you really think that adding moderation to a dead forum will revive it? That's the equivalent of trying to bring someone back from a coma by reading them the ten commandments. I'd prefer to stay in the coma than return to that. Tim (14 years ago, 29-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) There are two types of memberships here...which is also very confusing! As I remember it was fairly easy to become a regular member, but that did not allow posting. A membership that allowed you to post was a different and more difficult (...) (14 years ago, 29-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) The gigantic advantage with Lugnet IMO is that I never have log in here to post, once I registred several yesrs ago. It may have been a pain then, I don't even remember... But of course, if I'm the only one to experience it this way, it (...) (14 years ago, 29-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) As I see it if we keep the discussion here we will be talking to an increasingly smaller pool of old LDraw users and neglecting the newer ones. I'm very much in support of this move. Tim (14 years ago, 29-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) Many people read lugnet regularly but few post. This is why the term "lurknet" was coined several year ago. Improving Lugnet's "ease of use" would increase posting activity here. An active team of site administrators and moderators (to post (...) (14 years ago, 29-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) 14, 39 and 137 have taken the trouble to join in those periods - so clearly people are able to negotiate the sign up procedure (and are motivated to do so). I think it's reasonable to assume that the are several more readers, but I could be (...) (14 years ago, 28-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) At the risk of seeming snarky, how many new members have joined LUGNET in the past month? Three months? Six months? (14 years ago, 28-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) I'll second that! (14 years ago, 28-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) It would be great if fans decided to overhaul all of the lugnet forums to a new format. (The current forum should be saved somewhere as an archive of past fan activity.) The PHPbb forum format seems to be the most widely used type across the (...) (14 years ago, 28-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) NOT if it means as painfully slow as the rest of www.ldraw.org. /Tore (14 years ago, 28-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) If this means that will have a forum attached to www.ldraw.org MOVE, if it means that we move to www.xxxx.com/LdrawForum we'd better stay. The homepage at Lugnet.com features an article dated "5 June 2009" (by the way CAD still features the (...) (14 years ago, 28-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
Though I don't yet agree, I have noticed a serious drop in new involvement. I also must admit my own lack of involvement. LUGNET was once the only place to discuss each LEGO topic, but has not done its part to keep up with modern technology and (...) (14 years ago, 27-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Forum shift
|
|
(...) I can understand the problems with staying with Lugnet, but if we switch, then please pick some software which still allows both NNTP, SMTP and HTTP access. Play well, Jacob (14 years ago, 27-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Forum shift
|
|
Hi all, Well, as much as it pains me to say it, unless Lugnet changes the way it runs the forums (i.e. signup easy and intuitive, no authorization emails), I think we may need to change venues to avoid the potential alienation of new (...) (14 years ago, 27-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P -check Messages and hold votes
|
|
(...) It appears that nothing has happened since. How about setting up a wiki page and update the page listing when a hold is appropriate together. w. (14 years ago, 16-Oct-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) Hmmm, it seems to me that any algorithm that can find the missing Type 5 lines (in order to create the dummy entries) should be able to find *all* of the Type 5 lines. Some missing lines is just a special case of all missing. So just include (...) (14 years ago, 23-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) Actually, no. That is indeed a long-term goal, but it is hampered by two things. First of all, it's a lot of work. Secondly, the current algorithm is actually useful to part authors, since it can visually highlight missing conditional lines. (...) (14 years ago, 23-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) Sorry for that ;o) But (fortunately) here are very few twisted surfaces in LEGO pieces, so I don't think my tool has created too much havoc... (...) Problem is that at this low level I have almost no information about the intended geometry - I (...) (14 years ago, 22-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) I see. So what you really want to do in LDView is ignore the Type 5 lines (at least for smoothing) and smooth wherever there's no Type 2 edge lines between the triangles (and quads). (...) Did anybody ever did actually fix the parts though? I (...) (14 years ago, 22-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) algorithm. LDView uses Type 5 lines in the LDraw file for smoothing, and considers any two surfaces that have a Type 5 line joining them to be part of a smooth curve. The problem is that two co-planar triangles sitting next to each other (...) (14 years ago, 21-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) Isn't this the same problem we ran into with the twisted wedge bricks a while back? Those gave us problematic conditional lines in addition to the ugly zigzag shading artifacts. (URL) thought the solution was to orient the triangles orthogonal (...) (14 years ago, 18-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) Note that I consider this behavior to be a bug in LDView, and as such I will fix it when I get a chance. --Travis (14 years ago, 17-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) Good question! + reduces file size by 50% + 50% less vertices to adjust when building "by hand" + triangles plays havoc with smooth shading (the helical artefact that can be seen here (URL) disappears when triangles are converted to quads. But (...) (14 years ago, 17-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) I realise this is largely off-topic to the oriinal thread but I've always been curious why the use of quads is encouraged when just about every other format and rendering engine sticks to triangles. So the part author merges triangles into (...) (14 years ago, 16-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
There is one more thing to add to Joshua extensive explanations: coplanar triangle pairs are not assembled into quads. I advocated for that, because it offers the maximum flexibility when splitting into subparts or adjusting vertices position (no (...) (14 years ago, 16-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
