 | | Re: OMR Model Creation/Submission Rules
|
|
(...) I agree here. -Tim Courtney ldraw.org Project Coordinator (URL) timcourtne ICQ: 23951114 (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Model Creation/Submission Rules
|
|
Bram, I think the reason we would have a submodel for that submodel is because it is an official submodel. We would inline it because it is stationary; it can't be moved from where it is. Take a look at a scan of the instructions, it might help to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Model Creation/Submission Rules
|
|
(...) The point is if the submodel does not contain *any* moving parts, why make it a seperate model? Though we do have the available space filename-wise, it does seem kinda silly. But still, either way I guess is about the same thing. -Tim Courtney (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Model Creation/Submission Rules
|
|
(...) I don't see the point of inlineing any submodels unless they aren't official submodels. If the instructions use a submodel, why inline it? Seems like kind of a waste in making the submodel in the first place... --Bram Bram Lambrecht / o o \ (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD, the OMR, and Incomplete Parts
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:3767a2e5.193694...net.com... (...) Good incentive for people to learn part-making! Modeling the M:Tron line is what got me into doing parts. -John Van (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Model Creation/Submission Rules
|
|
(...) But we need to severely minimize the number of incomplete sets. Read Ampi's post. Don't think that we can make anything and everything and put it up there, there must be standards. (...) Yep. (...) No. (...) Read my post on the final file (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Model Creation/Submission Rules
|
|
(...) Correct. (...) Good point. I like the readiness system. Should we have it relative to the number of pieces, so you divide the number of parts by the number of parts in the model to get the percentage? Also, you could multiply it by a certain (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Model Creation/Submission Rules
|
|
(...) the (...) could (...) Repository. But on (...) errors - (...) large (...) anyways for (...) can strongly (...) Whatever works I guess :) I was thinking of it in a sense that as they are building the model and come across an unmade patterned (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD, the OMR, and Incomplete Parts
|
|
(...) OK. You're going to have some funny-looking models, with all those missing parts. Steve (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: part numbers screwed up?
|
|
(...) I took a look at the part files, and it appears (check the comment files in the 9903 update to be 100% sure) the following moves occured: 3942 (Cone 4 x 4 x 2) was moved to 3943. 3939 (Cone 2 x 2 x 2) was moved to 3942. 3951 was moved to 3939, (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
