Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Forum Statistics |
» Members: 5,310
» Latest member: artur
» Forum threads: 6,175
» Forum posts: 51,776
Full Statistics
|
Online Users |
There are currently 237 online users. » 1 Member(s) | 231 Guest(s) Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Google, Yandex, Philippe Hurbain
|
Latest Threads |
A fresh list of "most com...
Forum: Part Requests
Last Post: tom alphin
46 minutes ago
» Replies: 5
» Views: 264
|
Lego Town Racer 1996 - 63...
Forum: Official Models
Last Post: Chris Böhnke
6 hours ago
» Replies: 14
» Views: 1,678
|
Eyesight on Linux
Forum: Rendering Techniques
Last Post: Orion Pobursky
11 hours ago
» Replies: 12
» Views: 8,341
|
Another common varient: 1...
Forum: Part Requests
Last Post: Rene Rechthaler
2025-09-12, 14:51
» Replies: 8
» Views: 5,386
|
Fix for slightly incorrec...
Forum: Part Requests
Last Post: Gerald Lasser
2025-09-12, 14:13
» Replies: 3
» Views: 562
|
1Lx1Lx2L brick with studs...
Forum: Parts Authoring
Last Post: SNIPE
2025-09-12, 10:14
» Replies: 0
» Views: 468
|
LDraw Colors for OpenScad
Forum: LDraw Editors and Viewers
Last Post: Hageta
2025-09-12, 10:03
» Replies: 0
» Views: 426
|
Img4Dat integrated in LDP...
Forum: Parts Authoring
Last Post: Nils Schmidt
2025-09-11, 20:04
» Replies: 6
» Views: 865
|
TXT2DAT integrated in LDP...
Forum: Parts Author Tools
Last Post: Nils Schmidt
2025-09-11, 19:47
» Replies: 4
» Views: 944
|
Here is the raw version o...
Forum: Part Requests
Last Post: Peter Grass
2025-09-11, 4:39
» Replies: 2
» Views: 795
|
|
|
Unofficial files in the OMR |
Posted by: Willy Tschager - 2012-03-12, 9:14 - Forum: Standards Board
- Replies (12)
|
 |
I'd like to discuss this:
http://forums.ldraw.org/showthread.php?t...28#pid3128
Should we change in http://www.ldraw.org/Article593.html:
Quote:Unofficial parts are allowed to be used. The filename of the unofficial part is subject to the naming rules above (e.g. 33056.dat would be renamed to <MPD Filename> - 33956.dat).
to
Quote:Unofficial parts are allowed to be used. The filename of the unofficial part is subject to the following naming rules:
<Set Number> - <Unofficial Part Number>.dat
<Set Number> is the the number printed on the model's container.
<Unofficial Part Number> is the unofficial part number assigned in that very moment
(e.g. 33956.dat would be renamed to <Set Number> - 33956.dat).
w.
|
|
|
Call for votes: Stickers and Color 16 |
Posted by: Willy Tschager - 2012-03-10, 12:12 - Forum: Standards Board
- Replies (6)
|
 |
Please vote on the proposal below. Please modify the Subject to include your name and vote, in addition to giving your vote in the text.
Update the LDraw.org Official Library Specification for Sticker Parts in the following way:
Quote:For transparent stickers, the transparent portion should be modeled using color 16, so that the sticker can be attached to any color parts and still blend in. Unfortunately, if it is attached over a multi-colored region, it won't blend in, but there isn't really a good solution to that problem.
Except with transparent stickers, the sticker pattern is modeled by real colors. They are not modifiable from the outside, and so the use of color numbers 16 and 24 is not allowed. Color 16 is allowed for transparent stickers, as noted above, but color 24 is not.
The sticker pattern is modeled by real colors, they are not modifiable from the outside, and so the use of color numbers 16 and 24 is not allowed.
to
Quote:The sticker pattern is modelled by real colour; they are not modifiable from the outside. All printed colour of the pattern must be matched. Mimicking a colour by blending in the background colour of the part underneath using colour 16 is not allowed. Colour 16 is exclusively allowed for a transparent portion of the pattern, so that the sticker can be attached to any color parts and still blend in. Since edges are forbidden in sticker parts, colour 24 is not allowed.
|
|
|
Are standards for official parts too strict? |
Posted by: Travis Cobbs - 2012-03-10, 9:07 - Forum: Parts Authoring
- Replies (52)
|
 |
A number of part authors have indicated that they feel that some (many?) of the restrictions placed on official parts are overly bureaucratic, and thus counterproductive. And while I've been a member of the LSC for many years, I am not a part author, and I don't review very many parts. So while I personally feel that the current standards are fairly reasonable, I also feel that if they're driving part authors away, then perhaps they should be changed.
So, I'd like to get feedback from part authors, but only if the feedback is polite. Orion will quite rightly not put up with this thread turning into a flame war. I'm looking for honest feedback from current part authors about the requirements for official parts as they stand now. More specifically, I want to know if there is a feeling that certain restrictions should be removed.
If the results are such that I feel it's warranted, I'll start an official LSC discussion in the LSC forum. (This thread is here in this forum so that I can get feedback from more than just the current 5 members of the LSC.) If the vast majority of the results are that things are OK, I won't. And I'll be honest: even though I promise to start the discussion if I feel it's warranted, I can't make any guarantees about what the results will be, since I'm only one member of the 5-member LSC, and LSC procedures for the current LSC state that 2 NO votes are enough to defeat any proposal. And depending on what the requests are, I may even be one of the hypothetical NO votes. Actual change will require that no more than one of the current LSC members is against the proposed change.
|
|
|
Parts Tracker - Respond to Comments w/o Resubmit? |
Posted by: Greg Teft - 2012-03-09, 21:47 - Forum: Website Suggestions/Requests/Discussion
- Replies (4)
|
 |
I can't locate contact info for a reviewer, and don't want to get in the habit of cluttering the Authoring/Standards forum with review correspondence. Could there be a way to answer a review without resubmitting, or providing a sub-forum for per-file discussions, encouraging reviewers to look there for any counter-arguments?
Or, is the Authoring/Standards forum already expected to serve this purpose?
|
|
|
Terminating the CA? |
Posted by: Tore Eriksson - 2012-03-08, 1:58 - Forum: General LDraw.org Discussion
- Replies (8)
|
 |
As I am fed up with what has become of LDraw, I have decided not to contribute anymore. As my contributions to the parts library has already become quite scarse, you will probably not notice any difference there. Please don't try to talk me into giving it yet another try.
As I don't really approve to the derivative works made by LDraw.org to my already official parts either, I consider to cancel the agreement I once signed if possible. And here comes the tricky question: Is it possible to cancel the CA I signed for already existing parts?
/Tore
|
|
|
|