| |
At 02:18 PM 11/26/1999 , Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
Dave, remember you're not the problem. You're just the person to bring up
an issue that needs to be discussed and worked out for the future of LDraw
and ldraw.org. Opinions welcome :)
> 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.
Its good that you're agreeing about the official libraries. That's one
thing that will NOT change. ldraw.org official parts libraries will only
include Lego brand elements.
I don't see harm in renderings of clone parts either, just like I don't see
harm in a rendering of a completely non-building block object. Renderings
are renderings, no one owns rights to say what can be rendered and what
can't overall. Todd sees (and so do I) a problem with mixing Lego and
clone elements within renderings. Its a 'Keep our hobby clean'
sentiment. If you enjoy the clone pieces, go for it! We're not stopping
you there.
> 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?
Well, it would be nice to have a library of things like that, separate from
the Lego parts libraries. They could be helpful in renderings, like you
mentioned. But mixing those objects with the Lego parts update files would
also not be acceptable. A 'Environment/Scenery Pack' would be perfectly
acceptable.
> 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?
I'm thinking that there is just a feeling against mixing Lego brand with
non-Lego brand building block parts. Scenery parts such as sky colors,
ground colors, and water files, etc should be fine, as long as the update
files don't mix. Some people (myself included) don't like to see a model
built of mostly Lego but with the addition of a couple MegaBloks to
'enhance' it. That's evil IMASO [1] :)
[1] Todd - awesome acronym :)
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
