 | | 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)
|
