| |
> Nothing would stink
> more, IMASO[1], than seeing LEGO models sprinkled with Mega-Bloks elements
> and that sort of thing. Wait -- OK, one thing would stink more than that,
> IMSAO: parts libraries containing both LEGO and off-brands.
>
> If the parts libraries and element selection for off-brands (Mega Bloks) or
> compatible (Rokenbok) or totally other (Tinker Toys, K'NEX) systems could be
> kept totally separate from LEGO libraries, and if LEdit or MLCad worked with
> other scales and plastics, then, well, hey, All the more power to them!
I've been trying to keep a low profile on this thread after having stirred
the pot at the beginning, but now that I think of it, I have a few pseudo-
philosophical questions.
There've been myriad discussions of the merits and shortcomings of clones,
as well as of juniorized "official" pieces, and the general sentiment seems to
be that the worst official piece is better than the best clone, for reasons
ranging from color, to plastic quality, to basic design. All of these are
fine, of course, and reflect personal preferences that I surely won't try to
refute.
Throughout my ravings about my precious clone-DATs I've tried to make clear
my wish that they NOT be included in the official roster; is this what you
mean, Todd, by your unwillingness to group clones in the LEGO libraries? If
so, then I wholeheartedly agree. The Official Updates should be exactly that:
official updates. However, I confess that I don't see the harm in using clone-
DATs in rendering models.
More to the point, even though clone-DATs obviously shouldn't be part of the
official LDraw piece libraries, if some people want to use them, why shouldn't
they be allowed to? If someone rendered a particularly cool model but
included clone-DATs, would that model be cast out for lack of purity? Some of
the best LDraw/POV models incorporate elements and scenery that are distinctly
non-Lego, such as fog, stars, and water. Even L3P allows a selection of
"floors" which are not themselves of Lego. Should all these very useful and,
frankly, wonderful additions to virtual modelling be ousted?
Actually, I'm not sufficiently dim to think that anyone is suggesting this.
At the same time, though, no one would dream of including water-scenery in the
Official Piece Libaries. I guess the value of these additions is that they
aren't trying to detract from LDraw or from Lego in general; they're trying to
enhance modelling and allow for the creation of ever-cooler images. Why can't
clone-DATs be regarded in the same way? By definition they're not "official"
pieces, but why is there this widespread[1] and seemingly arbitrary choice
about which unofficial additions can be used in modelling and which cannot?
Dave!
[1] that is, I'm not addressing this question to any one person, even though I
am posting in reply to Todd's message.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
64 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
|
|
|
|
