 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi folks,
I’m currently working on the “Canvas Wagon Cover with Oval and Two Crossed
Cutlasses Pattern”
and before I start cleaning the part for PT-fitness I’d like to ask the LSC
for
some guidelines, since this is the first canvas part ever authored.
Actually
best would be if the LSC could set up a standard as they did for the
stickers:
http://www.ldraw.org/Article339.html
with a spot on the following questions:
- Shall the part be modeled by real colors, where they are not modifiable
from the outside, and so the use of color numbers 16 and 24 is not allowed?
If this the case shall a special color (may be a texture defined in
LDconfig.ldr) be used or a color close to an official LDraw color (15 - White
in this case)?
- I measured the thickness and got approx. 0.4 mm (1 LDU). Think it can also
apply to the others http://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catID=162
- Shall I submit also a non-pattern version as we do for parts?
- Do we want also the unfold version for a “Bill of Material” like this
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemPic.asp?P=x192px1? IMHO it would be
overkill - beside the fact that an unfold version has to be re-modeled from
scratch :-(
- Any ideas on the numbering for the case we don’t have the itemID for older
canvases?
- The name of the part begins with “Canvas” and we definitely need a new
category.
Your thoughts? Did I miss something?
w.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Willy Tschager wrote:
| |
Hi folks,
I’m currently working on the “Canvas Wagon Cover with Oval and Two Crossed
Cutlasses Pattern”
and before I start cleaning the part for PT-fitness I’d like to ask the LSC
for some guidelines, since this is the first canvas part ever authored.
Actually best would be if the LSC could set up a standard as they did for
the
stickers:
http://www.ldraw.org/Article339.html
with a spot on the following questions:
- Shall the part be modeled by real colors, where they are not modifiable
from the outside, and so the use of color numbers 16 and 24 is not allowed?
If this the case shall a special color (may be a texture defined in
LDconfig.ldr) be used or a color close to an official LDraw color (15 - White
in this case)?
- I measured the thickness and got approx. 0.4 mm (1 LDU). Think it can also
apply to the others http://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catID=162
- Shall I submit also a non-pattern version as we do for parts?
- Do we want also the unfold version for a “Bill of Material” like this
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemPic.asp?P=x192px1? IMHO it would be
overkill - beside the fact that an unfold version has to be re-modeled from
scratch :-(
- Any ideas on the numbering for the case we don’t have the itemID for older
canvases?
- The name of the part begins with “Canvas” and we definitely need a new
category.
Your thoughts? Did I miss something?
w.
|
I think as follow:
- As the “Canvas” is only useful in the fold version like the design of the part, it should not be modifyable like stickers (colors).
- Also we do not need an unfold version (mostly useless).
- Unpatterned versions are only necessary if there is also a real unpatterned version.
- Already defined numbering schemes are enought also to cover this parts.
- There should be a new category.
cu
mikeheide
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Michael Heidemann wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad, Willy Tschager wrote:
|
| |
- As the “Canvas” is only useful in the fold version like the design of the part, it should not be modifyable like stickers (colors).
|
Actually, I think it should use color 16 and 24 for the canvas portion. LDraw
is partially about allowing people to build computer models of real world
creations, but it’s also definitely about allowing them to build computer models
that will never exist in real life. As such, I think people should have control
over the color.
| |
- Also we do not need an unfold version (mostly useless).
|
I agree here.
| |
- Unpatterned versions are only necessary if there is also a real unpatterned version.
|
I could go either way on this. I’d definitely say that if an unpatterned
version wasn’t too much extra work, it’s probably worth it, but that’s just me.
I definitely wouldn’t call it necessary.
| |
- There should be a new category.
|
Yes. Officially, the first word of a part description is required to be one of
the existing categories. The category list is maintained by the part tracker
admins, though, not the LSC.
--Travis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad, Willy Tschager wrote:
> I'm currently working on the "Canvas Wagon Cover with Oval and Two Crossed
> Cutlasses Pattern"
>
> <<http://www.holly-wood.it/tmp/Canvas.gif>>
Nice.
> and before I start cleaning the part for PT-fitness I'd like to ask the LSC¬
> for some guidelines, since this is the first canvas part ever authored.¬
> Actually best would be if the LSC could set up a standard as they did for
> the¬ stickers:¬ ¬ <http://www.ldraw.org/Article339.html>¬ ¬
> with a spot on the following questions:¬
>
> * Shall the part be modeled by real colors, where they are not modifiable¬
> from the outside, and so the use of color numbers 16 and 24 is not
> allowed?¬ If this the case shall a special color (may be a texture defined
> in¬ LDconfig.ldr) be used or a color close to an official LDraw color (15 -
> White¬ in this case)?¬
> ¬
> * I measured the thickness and got approx. 0.4 mm (1 LDU). Think it can also¬
> apply to the others <http://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catID=162> ¬
> ¬
> * Shall I submit also a non-pattern version as we do for parts?¬
> ¬
> * Do we want also the unfold version for a "Bill of Material" like this¬
> <http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemPic.asp?P=x192px1>? IMHO it would be¬
> overkill - beside the fact that an unfold version has to be re-modeled
> from¬ scratch :-(¬
> ¬
> * Any ideas on the numbering for the case we don't have the itemID for older¬
> canvases?¬
> ¬
> * The name of the part begins with "Canvas" and we definitely need a new¬
> category.
>
> Your thoughts? Did I miss something?
Doesn't part 522
http://peeron.com/inv/parts/522
represent the first official part from this family? Should it stand as an
example for future such parts, or does it need to be revised after the LSC
adopts some guidelines?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
So...I'm working on the two tepee covers (this is gonna take a while... :-) and:
- 'Cloth' (Peeron) or 'Canvas' (Bricklink) ?
- thickness: 1LDU looks too thick to me. Have we settled on this, or is it
still up for grabs? I'm trying 0.5LDU right now, which looks better.
- base colour(s): I agree, 16/24. Apart from anything else, I'm not convinced
that the material used for these is actually white :-)
- Chris requested that I produce:
- the 'base' or unpatterned part, as well as the patterned ones
- each part as both a 'flat' version (for the BOM, I guess) and the conical
version which you'd actually use in a model (with a c01 suffix)
At this stage, I do not plan on making the door flap as a separate part as it
looks like far more trouble than it's worth :-) I'm also not intending to have
the punch-holes (in the conical versions at least) for technical reasons: in the
real world, the cloth cone deforms to fit around the bricks that make up the
base of the tepee; the LDraw part is obviously not flexible, and if you position
it so that the pegs on the tepee supports fit through the holes in the cover,
the 5x5 facet bricks used for the base protrude through the cover...the
workaround is to position it a few LDU higher up - not enough to look odd, but
just enough that the holes and pegs no longer line up.
All that said, does anyone have any strong opinions on any of this? :-)
Alex
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Alex Taylor wrote:
> So...I'm working on the two tepee covers (this is gonna take a while... :-) and:
> - thickness: 1LDU looks too thick to me. Have we settled on this, or is it
> still up for grabs? I'm trying 0.5LDU right now, which looks better.
A note on the thickness. If the part is BFC'd, then in theory there is no
minimum thickness that is required to prevent rendering artifacts. In reality,
you'll get artifacts on renderers that don't have BFC support if you go too
thin. If you're using LDView with BFC enabled for testing, it might be good to
test with BFC disabled in LDView, as well as test with other renderers such as
MLCAD, L3Lab, and POV after L3P export.
--Travis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Alex Taylor wrote:
> > So...I'm working on the two tepee covers (this is gonna take a while... :-) and:
>
> > - thickness: 1LDU looks too thick to me. Have we settled on this, or is it
> > still up for grabs? I'm trying 0.5LDU right now, which looks better.
>
> A note on the thickness. If the part is BFC'd, then in theory there is no
> minimum thickness that is required to prevent rendering artifacts. In reality,
> you'll get artifacts on renderers that don't have BFC support if you go too
> thin. If you're using LDView with BFC enabled for testing, it might be good to
> test with BFC disabled in LDView, as well as test with other renderers such as
> MLCAD, L3Lab, and POV after L3P export.
>
> --Travis
Yeah, MLCad has rendering problems at 0.5LDU. Oddly, it seems to be able to
cope with a 0.25LDU thick sticker.
Alex
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Alex Taylor wrote:
> So...I'm working on the two tepee covers (this is gonna take a while... :-) and:
>
> - 'Cloth' (Peeron) or 'Canvas' (Bricklink) ?
Canvas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas
> - thickness: 1LDU looks too thick to me. Have we settled on this, or is it
> still up for grabs? I'm trying 0.5LDU right now, which looks better.
I measured the Wagon Cover with a caliper rule (as I always do) and 0.4 mm
seamed to me much more appropriate than 0.2 mm.
> - each part as both a 'flat' version (for the BOM, I guess) and the conical
IMHO a flat version just for the BOM is overkill but I'd like to hear the PT
admin's opionion on this.
w.
| | | | | | |
