 | | I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
Here's a summary as I see it so far - The organizational goals aren't 100% clear yet but are getting clearer. - more of a sharing of experiences and ideas and resources (like the handout to pick a small example, but other stuff too) - less of a (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) Larry, Thanks for the summary this is basically just as I see it at the moment. <snip summary> (...) Yes. (...) Good point. Trains are definitly the most likely thing to be displayed at the moment so it is probably not going to be a common (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) That was one of the topics we talked and dreamed about at the 'summit' in New York - how "awesome" it would be to have a show where two or three (or more!) different LTCs could display. (Either separately or as one huge combined layout.) Can (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Sounds good to me. You must have posted this while I was working on my own (somewhat more formally worded version) of the same. Pretty fast - do you do this for a living or something? ;) (...) Pick a name, start a mailing list. (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) Right. And to make it work, it's not required that every group conform to some rigid standard (ala N-trak), although that gives you the most flexibility. *all* that is required is that a few modules from each layout can somehow interface, not (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) I hope you will stay involved :-) I think you've got the widest experience with LTCs (how many are you a member of?). (...) I'd love to see some work on module standards. It would be nice to head towards a standard height for the table (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) Great summary! I really feel this helped me a lot to understand more of the issues. One thing I'm not clear on yet, though, with regard to the purpose of the organization, is what current problems it would solve? Or would it just make more new (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) Good point. (I ask it myself in design reviews when people are putting technology in to something because the tech's cool rather than because it's needed) It's a question I haven't 100% sussed myself. There's the sharing of information (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) Personally I don't really feel like we are "solving any problems". The part of Steve B's. origional post that I really liked was the part about sharing information on Honorariums. This is something I have struggled with for a while with (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
So is anything happening with the I*LTC? Just curious or possibly impatient... (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) I dunno. But I'm expecting to hear something from Steve Barile. I know the mailing lists exist. Perhaps just start using one and let the "which list is it, we didn't pick a name yet" problem get solved later. Can you rename a pairlist? I (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G9Kr6L.FEJ@lugnet.com... (...) we (...) pairlist? (...) Lists exists and Steve and I have communicated a fair amount with respect to adding names to it. I excpect that Steve will be (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
