 | | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) The point is that the model does *not* use 4107488.dat because that is not the right shape for the model...... If everyone only ever used 4107488.dat, I would not have brought it up. (...) Chris has told me how to recognize the complete parts. (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote: <snip> (...) This is good to know. Sorry if I missed that. (...) Kevin (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org 2008-01 Parts Library Update now available
|
|
(...) purely a header standardisation exercise, although minor changes were made to part descriptions as part of this. Chris (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) Well, it's not shipped completely disassembled (arms and hands are pre-attached to the torso, and legs are attached to hips). However, I have certainly never seen them shipped completely assembled as a minifig (except for the glued keychains, (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
|
(...) Whether the Header Specification is ambiguous or not, this is how I believe I have implemented the "Shortcut" filetype in the !LDRAW_ORG line. So for the 2008-01 official library onwards, grep '!LDRAW_ORG Shortcut' * > foo should be reliable. (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
