Subject:
|
Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Apr 2003 03:39:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
45 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> > It's targeted at kids and novice users, so it's not meant to "compete" with
> > the powerful tools that have been developed for the LDraw file format.
>
> But, whether or not it's meant to compete, it will compete, won't it? Or
> will it have such a limited parts selection that only kids would want to
> use it? What about the more complex powerful LEGO building tools mentioned
> below? Won't those compete with tools that have been developed for the LDraw
> file format?
More on this post tomorrow, but a couple of quick answers. By compete, I
just meant that our DD software isn't meant to compete with, say MLCad. It
is designed for use by kids around the age of 7 or 8. MLCad, I would assume,
doesn't really become easily usable until the age of 12 or so, right?
> Sorry, I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, Jake. I'm just getting
> mixed signals. Some of my data is old, so I understand that things may have
> changed significantly.
No worries, you're not being a thorn. But yes, much has changed (perhaps
evolved is a better word). We have been working on this project for 3+
years, and as anyone who develops software knows, you have to be flexible in
your process. If you try to stick too stringently to your original goals and
objectives, then you will probably end up with something you don't like.
Over 3+ years, we learned what would work and what wouldn't technically. We
tested over and over with kids to see what they were capable of, and more
importantly, interested in doing. We dealt with legal and business issues.
And on and on...
<snip some good stuff>
> Anyway. I didn't sign an NDA back then, so I wasn't able to get very many
> details...only what was volunteered by Brad. I've kept silent on this since
> Nov 2000 out of respect for the fact that this project wasn't public, but now
> that the LXF file format project and DD is announced publicly, I think it
> would be great if we could all talk about our concerns publicly, for those
> of us who have concerns.
I can understand that desire, but please understand that there are MANY
issues at stake here. This is a huge leap forward for our business, and we
have to make sure that the company overall is comfortable with what we are
doing, and that we aren't committing business hari kari. That being said, we
are doing our best to get some discussion going so that we can hear concerns
and respond. Like this!
> Whether or not LXF is designed to "compete" with LDraw isn't really something
> that worries me... What worries me is wondering what life will be like in a
> world where LXF files can only be manipulated via an SDK, and where we won't
> be able to create our own parts in LXF format if LEGO doesn't provide all the
> parts.
More info on this tomorrow when I can get feedback from better informed
colleagues. But hey, in (almost) 3 years working with the community, have I
ever presented something that doesn't turn out good for the community in the
end? Try not to worry too much. Not yet anyway! ;)
> I see at least one way that LEGO benefits from having tools like MLCAD support
> the LXF format, but if the LCAD community is not in the target market for this
> product, what does the LCAD community gain by supporting the LXF format? I'm
> worried that all the good LCAD developers will, two years down the road, be
> bound by NDA and restricted somewhat in freedom of movement. For example,
> what if LEGO has come up with some totally ingenious method for encoding
> part connections, and that method is covered under NDA? It would hard for
> the community to implement the same method in LDraw format or some successor
> of it.
First, the NDA issues. The NDA is in place for one reason alone: Legal
issues that are not yet resolved. Once those are finalized, the NDAs go away.
Now, that being said, take the NDA discussion out of your statement above
and you have your answer as to why the community would support LXF... we can
all share in the work, and if LEGO comes up with "some totally ingenious
method for encoding part connections", it's not just ours. It's your too.
> I'd love to be wrong, though. But part of my job is to be skeptical. :-)
It is? Sounds like an interesting job! Do you get dental with that? :)
> > As they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
> > building tools.
>
> This sounds encouraging! :-) Do you mean that Digital Designer 1.0 is but
> the first in a sequence of ever-more-powerful and exciting software coming
> down the pike from LEGO? Do you think LEGO ever might release something as
> powerful as MLCAD?
I meant that they would graduate to the community developed tools.
<snip>
> I assume I won't need to pay a licensing fee to publish LXF files on the
> Internet.
Nope. We aren't creating the GIF format! :)
> > - Is the LXF format going to be open, will you publish it and will we be
> > able to extend it?
> > We will provide all of the necessary information in the SDK so that
> > independent developers can make their own tools that use LXF. However, as
> > many developers will tell you, it's good to try and manage the growth of a
> > format to some extent, so we would like to maintain the official list of
> > what the format includes.
>
> I understand that answer to mean that we will not be able to extend the
> format. How about the first half of the question, just so we understand
> 100% and can put speculation to rest. :-) Will LEGO be publishing any
> documentation on the file format itself? Will that documentation be freely
> available or will a person have to sign an NDA in order to obtain a copy of
> it?
Don't quote me quite yet on this one, but from what I understand, the
documentation will be available to all, and yes, you will be able to extend
the format. This is where I hope that the LDraw community comes together to
formalize. This will help make it much easier to extend, help to ensure
quality of the extension. We will need to be involved in this process at
first though. (The Adobe PostScript example was a good one from another post
in this thread).
Anyway, off to bed. More info tomorrow!
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Development Manager - N. America
LEGO Direct
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
| (...) I don't know if anyone's done an age study, but that sounds about right. (...) Which end? ;-) (...) Is it mine in the sense that I can legally implement the same method in another file format? (...) Naturally, part of my job at LUGNET is to (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
| (...) But, whether or not it's meant to compete, it will compete, won't it? Or will it have such a limited parts selection that only kids would want to use it? What about the more complex powerful LEGO building tools mentioned below? Won't those (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
