To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cadOpen lugnet.cad in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / 15581
15580  |  15582
Subject: 
Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad
Date: 
Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:05:19 GMT
Viewed: 
9670 times
  
In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> > used for this, and LPub already recognizes that.  So how is it that when a user
> > uses 4107488.dat, 680.dat, 681.dat, and 682.dat show up in the BOM (which I
> > believe is the problem you want to solve)?
> 
> 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.

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).


> Chris has told me how to recognize the complete parts.  What I am considering is
> LPub scans the library for a list the "complete" parts.  I would add new code
> to open up and examine the complete parts, and try to compress the list of
> sub-pieces in the PLI into complete parts.

I had forgotten about that new format for the LDRAW_ORG line, even though we
(the LSC) only approved it a few months ago.


> > solution would impact official parts.  My suggestion would be another LPub
> > begin/end meta pair to say "all lines between this begin and end should be
> > treated as a single part in the BOM".  Note: since it seems that I'm
> 
> We have that already.

OK.


> > I can't recall having ever seen a set that contained minifigs that didn't have
> > the minifig building steps at the very beginning of the set's instructions.
> > Having said that, the arms, legs and hands can all be at arbitrary angles if the
> > figure is placed into the model in the instructions, so it's still theoretically
> > possible that it would be good to have a fully built minifig show up in a BOM.
> > I still think this would better be served by LPub-specific meta-commands in the
> > model itself, though, since the user obviously couldn't put their custom-posed
> > minifig in the official library.
> 
> Obviously I don't buy sets with minifigs....... :^)

You mean you don't have the big Falcon?  It does have a fair number of old-style
technic beams ;-) (although they are new gray).

--Travis



Message is in Reply To:
  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. (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-08, to lugnet.cad)

10 Messages in This Thread:




Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR