 | | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
|
(...) Does this mean there will be a complex, powerful LEGO building tool to be released later or does this mean the graduation towards the LDraw tools such as MLCAD? (...) Multiple file formats never seem to work out too well (can you say BETA vs. (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
|
(...) That's raises an interesting moral and ethical dilemma: Is it morally acceptable to support the LXF format? Do you think anyone will boycott it? (...) Aren't millions of copies of USENET articles dating back to 1994-5 documentation enough? (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
|
In my opinion, what killed the community's enthusiuasm for working with LEGO was LEGO's intention to patent the file format (and complicate it to do so.) Since then, LEGO has obtained a government monopoly on CAD that is so broad, it could even be (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
|
(...) I also hope you're proven wrong, but the presence of an NDA would seem to indicate otherwise. Either way, I'm willing to work on cross platform tools if the Digital Designer software is more popular with my kids than Creator was. (...) I don't (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
|
(...) Ya, that would be a lot like Adobe's approach to PostScript. It's a closed language in that Adobe has decreed that they are the official purveyors of enhancements to the language, but it's an open language in that it's extremely well (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
|
(...) Ok, maybe things have changed. Originally TLC was talking about releasing parts as files. My understanding is that they have three "quality" levels of parts: high quality, medium quality, and low-quality. The high quality parts are what their (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Announcing LEGO Digital Designer 1.0
|
|
This is great timing and I'm very encouraged by what you've outlined here. I'd like to throw in my "me too" post about supporting other platforms in addition to Microsoft Windows(TM) and that the LXF spec be publically documented. It's reasonable (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
