Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Forum Statistics |
» Members: 5,156
» Latest member: Luke Hood
» Forum threads: 6,081
» Forum posts: 51,255
Full Statistics
|
Online Users |
There are currently 497 online users. » 2 Member(s) | 490 Guest(s) Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Google, Yandex, Philippe Hurbain
|
Latest Threads |
Modulex parts
Forum: Parts Authoring
Last Post: Chris Böhnke
40 minutes ago
» Replies: 31
» Views: 4,137
|
Same set, different sheet...
Forum: Parts Tracker Discussion
Last Post: Magnus Forsberg
Today, 6:15
» Replies: 8
» Views: 225
|
71613/30346c01 too high?!
Forum: Part Requests
Last Post: Chris Böhnke
Yesterday, 23:21
» Replies: 18
» Views: 4,598
|
5724pr0001 Bubble Canopy ...
Forum: Part Requests
Last Post: SNIPE
2025-07-12, 21:08
» Replies: 2
» Views: 224
|
Parts we are Working on -...
Forum: Part Requests
Last Post: Jeff Jones
2025-07-12, 11:23
» Replies: 157
» Views: 150,200
|
Friends 2014
Forum: Official Models
Last Post: Takeshi Takahashi
2025-07-11, 16:20
» Replies: 18
» Views: 16,912
|
LDCAD about Add custom p...
Forum: LDraw Editors and Viewers
Last Post: Nate87
2025-07-11, 8:13
» Replies: 5
» Views: 3,219
|
Hi-res logo primitives
Forum: Official File Specifications/Standards
Last Post: Jens Brühl
2025-07-10, 20:40
» Replies: 16
» Views: 1,285
|
Part 5561, Door 1 x 4 x 1...
Forum: Part Requests
Last Post: Gerald Lasser
2025-07-10, 9:55
» Replies: 1
» Views: 370
|
LDConfig Update: More dis...
Forum: Official File Specifications/Standards
Last Post: Jeff Jones
2025-07-09, 20:46
» Replies: 7
» Views: 628
|
|
|
Rendering LDraw Bricks commercially |
Posted by: rioforce - 2014-01-21, 16:08 - Forum: Help
- Replies (2)
|
 |
Hi, I read your lisense, and you said one has to give credit to the LDraw Parts Library if they use the parts (even commercially). But below that, you said something about a derivative work doesn't need attribution (I think that's what that meant). This is what you said:
Quote:Anything else should be considered a Derivative work and an attribution would be required.
What is not considered a Derivative work?
Rendered images generated from the LDraw library. Rendering here covers any conversion of a 3D model file into a 2D image.
It is a bit confusing, so here's my question: If someone wanted to use the LDraw Parts Library in a 3D movie, do they have to give credit? I would probably say "Yes", but the whole thing about the derivative work got me confused.
Thanks for the help!
|
|
|
Is LDraw diverging from bricklink? |
Posted by: Pet - 2014-01-20, 20:36 - Forum: General LDraw.org Discussion
- Replies (3)
|
 |
Hi, I am new to LDraw so I have many many questions. I wanted to document my MOC build from one of my technic set. I've started in LDD but the I did not find some easy way to sort the building steps. I've tried the MLCad with LPub and it seems to be really great - thank you all guys for this sw. But...
I did not find any simple way to filter only parts from one (or some) sets. I've found the peeron_to_mlcad, but it is not the way I'd like to do it - to select the parts from the tree. As I am a programmer, I've started to think about a better way - to simply replace the parts.lst with my own (including color information and information on number of pieces). This way seems to work really well, but I've found the problem, which I am not able to solve automatically:
Some parts are missing (replaced by some alias) e.g.:
- 111b -> exists as 58177 (I've found it on LDraw part request forum) - is there some standard way to find this info??
- 6538c - according to Parts Tracker (http://ldraw.org/cgi-bin/tracker/activit.../6538c.dat) this part was deleted on 2013-03-13 - why?
now it exists as 59443 and this is rebrickable entry on this part: http://rebrickable.com/parts/59443 - LDraw scrap
Why is the compatibility of LDraw with other lego databases worse than it was a year ago?
Thanks for reply.
pet
|
|
|
slight idea for PT review page |
Posted by: Santeri Piippo - 2014-01-19, 17:20 - Forum: Website Suggestions/Requests/Discussion
- Replies (6)
|
 |
When posting a review for a part, could the user's existing cert status be enabled by default in the radio buttons? This would make it easier to post comments without changing cert status.
e.g. suppose I vote cert on 13665.dat (which I actually did) and went to post a comment on it afterwards (which I also did), the "Certify" radio button would already be selected by default since I have an existing cert vote on the part, instead of leaving it blank and have me push novote by default and almost having me clear my cert by accident.
I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with these blunders and having the PT automatically select the existing cert radio button would make things that much easier.
|
|
|
Sorting parts by upload date and/or last update |
Posted by: Jude Parrill - 2014-01-19, 8:51 - Forum: Website Suggestions/Requests/Discussion
- Replies (2)
|
 |
I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this request, as it is pertains to the PT part of the website and not the forums/main page, but I'm unsure where else to put it. So feel free to move it if there is a better place.
So, I, like I'm sure most of you are, am a big fan of the Master Parts List Page. It contains a lot of useful information in a nicely organized fashion, with the ability to sort it however you wish, save a few options that I would like to see added.
It would be nice if we could sort this list by the date the part was added to the PT. This way, it would be easy to see which parts have been on the PT for a long time and which ones were recently added, so that those of us looking for parts to edit can easily find the older ones.
In addition (or perhaps as an alternative), it might also be useful to be able to sort these parts based on their last update. For simplicity sake, this would be the date of the last submit. I think this information would be useful as well for part authors, editors, and reviewers for finding the parts most in need of attention.
|
|
|
|