Subject:
|
Re: Reasons to L-CAD (was: Re: Am I the only person who finds Lego CAD systems infuriating?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:35:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3587 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> > >
> > > On the topic of Lego CAD systems (not LDD, but LDraw and derivatives), I've
> > > never understood the point of them. About the only things I figured they were
> > > good for was a) making instructions and b) prototyping things you didn't have
> > > the parts for.
> >
> > c) documenting a MOC you want to disassemble (eg:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=133582). That is what I mainly
> > use it for, although I have used it for a) as well.
>
> d) illustrating building techniques (sorry, no example handy).
> With L-CAD
> models, you can more easily show your point by:
> - creating 'cutaway' models, showing only the parts involved in the technique
> being discussed. In some programs, you can literally create cut-away views.
> - using unreal colors to highlight the important bits
> - using schematic art instead of photographs for clarity.
Here's one example, (of many on BrickWiki and elsewhere) where a photo would not
be nearly as good, as false colors and schematics really drive the point home.
http://brickwiki.zapto.org/index.php/SNIR_techniques
This sort of illustrating has been used to good effect in presentations
(BrickFest, the ILTCO library, etc) as well.
I think comparing LDD and MLCad (and other LDraw compatible editors) usability
wise does a great disservice to the LDraw editors, which in my view are far
easier to use than LDD.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
