| |
[Added lugnet.cad.dev to newsgroups list]
> > John VanZwieten:
> > > Todd,
> > > Have you thought any more about adding lugnet.cad.dat.parts
> > > and/or lugnet.cad.dat.tlgsets?
A little bit, yes, but not a lot. Since you bring it up, now a good time to
give it a second round of consideration. Here are some of my thoughts:
One thing that would work out nicely in the .parts case is its mapping as
the web-site URL. That is, the current mapping:
lugnet.cad.dat <==> http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/
would automatically get the subcategory:
lugnet.cad.dat.parts <==> http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/
and would have a user-friendly title bar on the web page:
CAD / DAT Files / Parts
Working backward from that, it would make the most structural sense if there
were a Models group parallel to the Parts group -- except that it may not
make practical sense. If there were a Models group, then there might ought
also to be a Scenes group -- scenes being collections of Models. Also,
there might ought to be a Sub-Assemblies group -- sub-assemblies being parts
of Models.
If everything fell neatly into those four categories --
Parts
Sub-Assemblies
Models
Scenes
-- or maybe some other workable set -- then the divisions would be pretty
clear. See the first 4 messages on this thread...
http://www.lugnet.com/news/fullthread.cgi?lugnet.cad.dev:16
...for a refresher on the consensus of this in February. I think what Steve
Bliss was getting at makes a lot of sense.
Next point of consideration -- if there were a Models group, it could be
further subdivided into MOCs and TLG models, but even then there are
crossovers, for example when someone modifies a TLG model slightly. The
result isn't truly a TLG model anymore, but from a browsing point of view to
those interested in a particular TLG model, they'd probably want to see the
variations. So there'd probably be a link to it from the webpage in the DB
for that set, but maybe it wouldn't belong in a pure-TLG model group.
But even without this sort of gray-area -- if all models were either pure-
MOC or pure-TLG -- I wonder whether it would really be practical from a
browsing point of view to have separate groups for TLG models and non-TLG
models. It depends whether people look at models for the enjoyment of
looking at models or whether people want to see TLG models but not MOCs.
Give how great so many MOCs are, I can't imagine people preferring to view
TLG models as a bunch exclusive from MOCs. Seems more likely that someone
would want to view a bunch of, say, Star Wars models all at once -- with TLG
and MOCs mixed in together.
Anyway, here's what I do when I view lugnet.cad.dat on the web pages: I go
look at all the new models every couple of days, because these are
enjoyable. I don't typically look at the new parts or parts-in-progress
that have been posted, because, although these are *interesting* to me,
they're not enjoyable. Similarly, I can imagine someone intimately related
with parts creation possibly having an intensely enjoyable time looking at
and analyzing posted parts but not much caring for posted models, beyond a
circumspectual interest.
The reason I listed Sub-Assemblies as a possible category of .dat goes all
the way back to something mentioned in page 5 of the LUGNET Plan document
"The Guide is organized hierarchically to match the official LEGO product
line. At the bottom is a repository categorizing All Pieces, complete
with names, sizes, keywords, and renderings, drawings, or photos for each
piece (element). Above this is a repository of Piece Inventories, which
itemizes the contents of each Set (kit) and of each member-designed
model. This serves the repository of All Sets and of a Member Idea Book.
In the diagram earlier shown, the Member Idea Book is positioned slightly
closer to the Piece Inventories than is the repository of All Sets, even
though the two are essentially both lists of pieces. This anomaly exists
because a primary function of the Member Idea Book is to serve as an
encyclopedia of componentized ideas which will be tied in closely to the
parts markets in Phase III. That is, someone is more likely to attempt
to acquire all the pieces in a given Idea Book object separately than
they are to acquire all the pieces in a given Set separately, since Sets
are chiefly available whole and there is no entity producing whole,
encapsulated Member Idea Book objects (although it is interesting to
ponder the possibilities of this)."
-- <http://www.lugnet.com/plan/plan-5.html>
I would really love to see a sub-area of the .dat group dedicated to various
types of sub-assemblies and building techniques -- examples of new and
useful ways to combine elements -- never complete models but lots of 2 to
~10 line DAT files illustrating a technique. There are so many neat
discoveries worth sharing in this manner which may otherwise go unnoticed or
unappreciated in the context of a large model. You could models from, for
example, Karim Nassar or Barbara Sproat or Leo Dorst, for hours and learn
dozens of cool techniques.
I think one thing lacking in recent LEGO Idea Book publications is a focus
on tiny little models and interesting interconnection methods. The old
#6000 Idea Book was pretty good at this, but we as oranized fanatics can do
even better!
The reason I listed Scenes as a possible category of .dat is to help provide
cues that the content therein is likely to be a re-use of existing content
elsewhere -- creative endeavors such as Ryan Dennett's Hoth Battle Scene are
perhaps a different type of composition than the original models they
contain.
At any rate, I think Yes, it would be nice to form some sub-groups of the
.dat group. A Parts category is pretty straightforward, but I don't know
how other people feel about things like Sub-Assemblies and Scenes. Mostly,
it's probably an issue of coming up with short yet meaningful names.
The current virtual group,
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/ldraw/parts/
BTW, could easily be moved over to .dat.parts, with a cross-link from
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/ldraw/
so that there wouldn't be two different "parts" categories on the website.
> > > I especially think the .parts separation would make it easier to
> > > find both parts and the models left in cad.dat.
Me too.
Jeremy Sproat:
> > If so, would MOCs go into lugnet.cad.dat or lugnet.cad.dat.moc?
'.moc' doesn't map very well into a meaningful link-name on the web page --
think in terms of being at
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dat/
and seeing one or more subcategory names to click on in the light-blue band
at the top. Both "My Own Creations" and "MOC" are likely to cause confusion
with many surfers. I don't know what -would- work perfectly but the issue
could be avoided altogether by not having a special category for MOCs. :)
John VanZwieten:
> I would suggest just lugnet.cad.dat, but either way is fine with me.
If there is only one sub-group (i.e. parts), I think it makes the most sense
to continue putting MOCs in .cad.dat (no sub-group for MOCs, in other
words).
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
|
| On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 00:24:43 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote: [Big snip] I think there is some value in classifying real TLG models separately from MOCs. You, Todd, could have lugnet.cad.dat.sets lugnet.cad.dat.creations Which aren't (...) (26 years ago, 3-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
|
| I was wondering what was taking Todd so long to reply (he usually pounces on questions directed his way) and now I see he was writing a thesis on the topic. Thanks for the in-depth response. The major reason I see for separating out parts and (...) (26 years ago, 3-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
