 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) To be more precise 'with the legal blessing of the Jessiman's and everyone who has ever contributed a part.' As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread one of the benefits is that someone could release a perfectly legal version of the library (...) (14 years ago, 9-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Hmm... This is reminding me of deja vu. Did you email me about this, maybe five or six years ago? Okay, okay. I'll give it a try. But if it doesn't chase those pesky kids off of my lawn, I'm going right back to the full-screen obsolescence of (...) (14 years ago, 8-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I'd agree, if that was the only benefit of the "discussion and hand-wringing", however the primary benefit of it was to get a library that could be freely distributed with the blessing of the Jessimans. (...) I don't see that it does. (...) (...) (14 years ago, 8-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Ah Ha! I knew it! When I suggested you were probably "still running the original LEDIT program on some ancient 386 ... stashed in an attic somewhere", you only denied the 386 part. You *are* still running LEDIT in somebody's attic! So I know (...) (14 years ago, 8-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I'm guilty of that blank-space-deletion in my own parts, I confess. I do most of my authoring in Excel, and sometimes it becomes helpful to sort by linetype. This has the effect of stripping out the blank lines or at least moving them around (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I agree to some extent. But now it's there, like it or not. I have very little (if any?) use of it and yes it annoys me a little. The deleting of extra blank lines (used to group lines some way related to eachother) that makes the dat code a (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) For me, the argument comes back to process vs. product, as was discussed in the previous thread. Additionally, it raises the question of whether LDraw is a tool for the end-users or a tool for the reviewers. The extended period of discussion (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I'm intrigued - the only point in that last sentence that differentiates the "indecipherable gobbledygook" from the inline POV is that the latter "yields a greatly superior output image". It's certainly no less invisible to the end-user, nor (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I know, I know. Fair call. I should have learnt years ago never to claim I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. That is lame. Please pretend I murfled both hissy fits. I find it much too difficult to resist attacks against my person and (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Nowhere have you presented an argument that differ in any way from the "collective dogma," so I don't see why your argument should be treated any differently. (...) Don't tease. In your previous reply you said that you were done with the (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) --snip-- So pretty much you're saying you think that anyone who disagrees with you does so not from their own reasoned perspective but because of some collective dogma. Well now that we've cleared that up I'll know never to bother with you (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Speaking of ray-tracing then, I prusume... (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Quick! Somebody bring up the separation of church and state! (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
<snip> And here I was... thinking the old LUGNET was gone forever. (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray) !
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) You've been parroting the company line in this thread and that previous one, so even though you're not literally affiliated with the LSC, you're playing the part of cheerleader here, so it's pretty much the same thing. Your position is not (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) Wow. You're totally confusing me with someone else. I've never been in the LSC, haven't been in the SteerCo for a couple of years, haven't had much at all to do with the LDraw header (other than a teensy bit to do with the licensing which, (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | POV dat - 4592 - Hinge Control Stick Base - POV [DAT]
|
|
0 Hinge Control Stick Base - POV 0 Name: 4592.dat 0 Author: Steve Bliss [sbliss] 0 Unofficial Part 0 // using DAT code from LDRAW_ORG Part UPDATE 2005-01 0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt 0 // POV code by Orion (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) No, the IFPPOV-ELSEPOV-ENDPOV typically does not cover the whole file. The main idea behind *inlining* POV code is that many parts only have a small tricky/curvy section that would look better with POV code, so only e.g. 5 % of the file should (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) If we were both sitting on a bench somewhere and arguing from equal positions of power, then that statement would make sense. However, you are speaking from the position of The Mighty LSC, an entity apparently able to make decisions by fiat. (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
| |
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
|
(...) I upload my POV enhanced LDraw dat files as replies to this post here in Lugnet: (URL) I will continue with that as long as the posts seem to be popular. If you have more Lego parts in the same spirit, they are welcome in that thread. About (...) (14 years ago, 2-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
