 | | Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | Hi, I want to start by thanking the LDraw Standards Committee for all their diligent work in stratifying the documentation on LDraw Header format: (URL) As thorough as this document is, it is incomplete or ambiguous in the area of describing (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | (...) Shouldn't 680.dat, 681.dat, and 682.dat all be in the parts/s directory? They don't represent real pieces of plastic (or rubber in this case), so I don't understand why they are modeled as such. Or do synthesized sub-parts get treated (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | | | (...) I guess they should be, but they are not. (...) Fair enough. I didn't know they were always shipped disassembled. (...) The only files that LPub opens and analyzes are model and submodel files. All other opening and analyzing of part files is (...) (16 years ago, 17-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Sorry. I misinterpreted your initial post. I just went back and reread it, and see that it doesn't actually say that the user used 4107488.dat, but it does seems to imply this (at least to me). (...) I had forgotten about that new format for (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts —Joshua Delahunty
|
| | | | | | | | (...) NOT that it's probably relevant to the discussion one way or the other, but... :-) Back before TLG was into their current practice of saving on packaging*, the boxes had what I always referred to as the "Display tray", a plastic molded tray (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | (...) <SNIP> (...) Yes, they should, but the "mistake" was made eight years ago, before we had the clarity that time brings to standards implementation. The same applies to 754-756, at least. For backward compatibility reasons we can never remove (...) (16 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | | 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: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts —Chris Dee
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
