http://shop.lego.com/catalog/productLarg...ene7Spin=1

Wow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp8Y2yjV4fU

This combines
(a) image recognition (scanning)
(b) algorithmic solution of problem
© drawing machine

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I have bean having some problems with Mlcad, and i need some info on how i can fix these two problems. The first problem is that i cant select and change the rotation vector and type in what i want. Second, i cant add any new custom colors to my default color list. Also, im running on windows vista.

I have created five attachments, to display the problems that i have bean having.

Any help would be appreciated.
sincerely: Elijah Horton

Attached Files

  rotation vector error.txt (Size: 62.67 KB / Downloads: 0)
  color selection error1.txt (Size: 46.41 KB / Downloads: 0)
  color selection error2.txt (Size: 43.53 KB / Downloads: 0)
  color selection error3.txt (Size: 63.08 KB / Downloads: 0)
  color selection error4.txt (Size: 44.03 KB / Downloads: 0)

Hi all,

I have these 3 custom made parts with a pattern with "holes".
I know this has something to do with BFC, but don't what to do.
Can this be corrected at once?

Jaco

Attached Files

  4215xLf22.dat (Size: 93.11 KB / Downloads: 0)
  4215xRt22.dat (Size: 111.84 KB / Downloads: 0)
  4215CargTxt.dat (Size: 1.26 MB / Downloads: 0)

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=2677  - Monorail Track Ramp Lower Part
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=2678  - Monorail Track Ramp Upper Part

These parts were very old parts but have not released as even an unofficial part until at the moment.

Is there any able man who are planning on these parts?

Thanks for reading.

KWON

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

Hello,

Long story short, I'm giving a presentation in which I would like to include screenshots of the interfaces of LDraw-related software.

My list currently is:

• BlockCad
  
• BrickFoundry
  
• BrickPad
  
• Bricksmith
  
• brickView
  
• Glide
  
• Konstructor
  
• L3Lab
  
• LD4DStudio
  
• LDCad
  
• Lego Digital Designer
  
• LDGlite
  
• LDlite
  
• LDView
  
• LEdit
  
• LeoCad
  
• LGLite
  
• MLCad
  
• SR3DBuilder
  

• L3GLite
  
• LCX
  
• Brickdraw3D