To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brandsOpen lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Clone Brands / 184
183  |  185
Subject: 
Re: Clone DATs--any interest?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.cad.dev
Date: 
Sat, 27 Nov 1999 00:19:17 GMT
Viewed: 
36 times
  
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> writes:
[...]
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?

[1] that is, I'm not addressing this question to any one person, even though I
am posting in reply to Todd's message.

I haven't thought about this much and I can only speak for myself, but when
I see water or skies or starry backgrounds, or fire or smoke or sand or
anything like that, to me it's just "background stuff" to round out the
image -- just as LEGO does on its official packaging.  The main (and only
"real") object in the image is the model and that model is still fully
buildable irrespective of any background stuffs.

A background to me is on the same level as a stand for a model -- it's not
really there.  Clone parts in a model, now that's different.  Clone parts in
a model are really *there* as part of the model -- they're not background
stuff, so I can't pretend they're not there.  Also, a LEGO model which
incorporates clone or unofficial parts is something I can't build (because,
unlike LEGO sets, I can't even fathom the thought of ever buying some clone
brand set to get some piece I'd need).  And if I know a model is not
buildable, then I can't really enjoy it.

Anyway, that's just my view, and I don't know if it explains other peoples'
views on the question or not.

--Todd



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Clone DATs--any interest?
 
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 26-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.cad.dev)

64 Messages in This Thread:



































Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR