| |
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 official models is that
they form a "long-term" resource. I'm sure many cad.dat followers skip part
files, but if you have a sudden need for a part that has been posted but is
not official yet, I would be nice to have a consolidated place to see the last
20 parts posted without paging through 50 MOC posts.
Likewise for official TLG models: I would guess that if I posted 8 such
models today, most of the cad.dat followers wouldn't even look at them, since
they know what the models look like. Your probably right that noone would
want to visit a models group to look at all the posts. But if I need to find
a .dat of a model, perhaps to include in a scene, or maybe just to print my
own instructions, it would be great to have a consolidated compendium of such
models.
Integrating these categories with the web interface makes great sense. I
would think eventually the official models would be linked to Pause as well.
I'm warming up to the idea of a submodel group, too. I'm envisioning several
of the "masters" posting their versions of retractable landing gear.
As far a as a scene group, I can see the future possibilities, but I'm not
sure it makes sense to separate out such a small number of posts as I would
expect this group would generate in the near future. For now I think they fit
well in the general category of cad.dat.
I guess a general rule would be "Does the added convenience of having posts
separated out outweigh the inconvenience of checking another newgroup?" The
only two categories I can personally say would benefit me are the parts, and
the official models (maybe cad.dat.sets?).
I agree that MOCs form the heart of cad.dat and should stay there. A possible
exception would be "alternate models" using the parts of a single set (or a
few sets). This would form a resource similar to a sets group.
OK, I've rambled on long enough, and I need to get back to Karim's part
request.
-John Van
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
|
| [Added lugnet.cad.dev to newsgroups list] (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 3-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
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
|
|
|
|
