 | | | | | |
Hey all,
Time to vote.
http://www.ldraw.org/motm/
Good luck to the entrants.
And notice that there is a link to an additional rules page.
I've decided to try a split format. A model-only contest and a scene
contest. The rules are spelled out on how and what to enter.
http://www.ldraw.org/motm/info.shtml
The rules for the model-only entries are quite restrictive. By my reckoning,
four of the current entries would qualify as model-only entries - if I were
to start the two contests now. But that is next month.
The scene contest is much more liberal - pretty much as it is now.
-- Terry K --
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Terry Keller writes:
> Hey all,
>
> Time to vote.
> http://www.ldraw.org/motm/
> Good luck to the entrants.
Such big decisions! Silly castle people, can't you take turns? The vote'll
be split among you all! Who do I vote for? I'm torn, Brad's cathedral is
cool but Tamy and Elin and the dragon... ugh!!
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
No! you just have to vote for you favorite this month... I'm sure a few
of us will have to resubmit.. no problem :)
The space people don't take turns... why should we have to!
besides, I'd rather see the whole vote be castle ;) I'm being greedy!
hehehehe
Tamy
(remember to vote!!!)
Shiri Dori wrote:
>
> In lugnet.announce, Terry Keller writes:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Time to vote.
> > http://www.ldraw.org/motm/
> > Good luck to the entrants.
>
> Such big decisions! Silly castle people, can't you take turns? The vote'll
> be split among you all! Who do I vote for? I'm torn, Brad's cathedral is
> cool but Tamy and Elin and the dragon... ugh!!
>
> -Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hi Shiri,
If there is any thought of voting for mine, then vote for one of the others.
I've already won twice. I just wanted to enter this to show off some more
models. I don't really care about winning.
There are plenty of really strong entries this time.
Shiri Dori <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GFHHLL.IG6@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.announce, Terry Keller writes:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Time to vote.
> > http://www.ldraw.org/motm/
> > Good luck to the entrants.
>
> Such big decisions! Silly castle people, can't you take turns? The vote'll
> be split among you all! Who do I vote for? I'm torn, Brad's cathedral is
> cool but Tamy and Elin and the dragon... ugh!!
>
> -Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Terry,
Regarding the new rules,
I like them, except for the part about not specifying a web address and not
providing multiple views. All of my renderings would fit into the "model"
category except for this. I like to provide a web link to multiple views of
the same model.
I can understand the need to limit this (because someone could easily post a
non-conforming image on the web link), but couldn't we try seeing if people
are honest and just put that all images on the web link need to conform to
the other rules?
Brad
Terry K <legoverse@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:GFHGp3.H0H@lugnet.com...
> Hey all,
>
> Time to vote.
> http://www.ldraw.org/motm/
> Good luck to the entrants.
>
> And notice that there is a link to an additional rules page.
> I've decided to try a split format. A model-only contest and a scene
> contest. The rules are spelled out on how and what to enter.
> http://www.ldraw.org/motm/info.shtml
>
> The rules for the model-only entries are quite restrictive. By my • reckoning,
> four of the current entries would qualify as model-only entries - if I • were
> to start the two contests now. But that is next month.
>
> The scene contest is much more liberal - pretty much as it is now.
>
> -- Terry K --
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Brad Hamilton writes:
> Terry,
>
> Regarding the new rules,
>
> I like them, except for the part about not specifying a web address and not
> providing multiple views. All of my renderings would fit into the "model"
> category except for this. I like to provide a web link to multiple views of
> the same model.
>
> I can understand the need to limit this (because someone could easily post a
> non-conforming image on the web link), but couldn't we try seeing if people
> are honest and just put that all images on the web link need to conform to
> the other rules?
>
> Brad
It's not just that.
It was more of a fairness issue. Some people have sites with pictures up.
Some don't. Some may not even have multiple images of what they entered to
put on a site.
So I thought it fairer if the voting was based just on the image as presented.
Another issue was getting links to sites that do not link to just more
images of the model, but rather to the general site. At which point much
rooting around needed to be done to find the model in question. In some
cases the image on the site was the same as the entry. Which made it a
pointless link.
Another case is where entries came with multiple links. Each link went to a
different view of the model. BUT, there was no actual webpage where you
could browse the various views. Rather each image was just loaded onto the
server and you had to enter a specific address to get to it. That is
technically awkward to say the least.
Then there is the issue of dead links.
Servers go down.
Another problem occured with an image that used multiple models. Links were
provided to several different places (different domains altogether) where
each submodel was presented. So which to use?
All in all I concurred with the opinion that additional links, while nice,
were not necessary and may, at times, be detrimental to others.
So, to just neatly sidestep all those issues, I decided to scrap the links.
As far as various views go, I have ruminated on this subject a little.
I am *considering* the option of allowing more than one view in the MODEL
category WITHIN the image. Perhaps allowed a maximum number such as four.
This could be done by using multiple copies, arranged in various positions,
while rendering. Or perhaps by allowing the author to cut n' paste
("windowpane" style) up to four images into one image with a maximum size of
800x600. The downside to that is having smaller images to view. The author
would have to weigh the benefits of multiple smaller views over the impact
and detail of one large view. Which would best show off the model?
I haven't decided whether or not to do that.
One reason not to do it is that it considerably raises the level of
technical knowhow required to get such an image - which might be a hindrance
to entering for some people.
Comments on multiple views withing an image?
Another possible addition is labeling. I have though about allowing some
simple text labeling on the MODEL entries. Labeling could be useful to
title the image and to point out features. I would want to restrict it to
simple informative labeling only. No garish, flashing text effects that
would detract from the model.
Again, I have not decided whether or not to allow this.
Comments on labels?
-- Terry K --
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Terry K" <legoverse@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:GFItLI.9zy@lugnet.com...
> Comments on labels?
I think labels should be allowed - it can make it harder for someone else to
use the picture in other circumstances, and you might want to sign your work.
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery/index.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Anders Isaksson writes:
> "Terry K" <legoverse@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:GFItLI.9zy@lugnet.com...
> > Comments on labels?
>
> I think labels should be allowed - it can make it harder for someone else to
> use the picture in other circumstances, and you might want to sign your work.
Another good point.
I will add a provision about signing your work for sure. Many people do
that and there is no problem with doing so.
Thanks Anders for bringing that up,
-- Terry K --
| | | | | | |
