To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.devOpen lugnet.cad.dev in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / 1241
1240  |  1242
Subject: 
Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev
Date: 
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:31:58 GMT
Viewed: 
207 times
  
On 4/12/99, at 10:06 PM, lehman@javanet.com wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) writes:
> 1. lugnet.cad.dat                \  One of these for
>   lugnet.cad.dat.creations      /  creations/MOCs
> 
>   If .creations were created, the main .dat group could nicely be nixed.
>   The problem with not having a main .dat group, though, is the same as
>   not having a general catch-all group -- where do new paradigms go as they
>   are spontaneously invented?  I'd favor keeping .dat and not creating a
>   sub-category for MOCs/creations.

I think that having a cad.dat.creations would be a great idea but I have to
agree, What would happen to cad.dat?
> 
> 2. lugnet.cad.dat.sets           - for official models/sets
> 
>   I think we clearly could benefit from this.
> 
> 3. lugnet.cad.dat.sets.alt       - for alternative models using parts from
>                                   official sets
> 
>   There are three subclasses of alternative models:
> 
>   i.   Those which are alternative models of official sets and which
>        include official printed building instructions for the model.
I think these belong in this subcatagory.

>   ii.  Those which are built by close inspection of an alternative model
>        shown on the back of a box, but for which official building
>        instructions are not known.
>   iii. Those which are entirely fan-created alternative models -- such as
>        the type for which JosephG is famous.

I think that these should be considered MOCs, but with the set as a reference.

> 4. lugnet.cad.dat.parts          - for LDraw parts development
> 
>   We clearly need this, for several reasons.
We definately need this :)

>   <deep breath>
> 
>   Thoughts?
> 5. lugnet.cad.dat.assemblies     \
>   lugnet.cad.dat.cookbook        \
>   lugnet.cad.dat.encyclopedia     \  One of these for design snippets,
>   lugnet.cad.dat.ideas            /  sub-assemblies, building tricks,
>   lugnet.cad.dat.recipes         /   educational constructions, etc.
>   lugnet.cad.dat.sub            /
> 
>   The name here needs to be carefully chosen (or documented) to fit the
>   whole range of things that the group encompasses.  The words "cookbook"
>   and "recipes" are good analogies, but a bit on the cute side.
> 
>   As JohnVZ said, "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."

This would be a great addition.
> 
> 
>   What I really am dying to create eventually is the ability for users to
>   be on the page of some (any) part and think to themselves, "That's a
>   weird part, how would you use that?" and then click a link which *shows*
>   them some ways that people have used it.  Since the underlying DB would
>   be able to do cross referencing of parts, you should be able to jump into
>   that DB from a part page, a theme page, a model-topic page, a scoped
>   search, etc.

Now that is one good idea. That would be good for newer modelers and experianced
alike.

> 6. lugnet.cad.dat.scenes         - for complex meta-models (scenes)
> 
>   We haven't seen too many "scenes" yet, perhaps because people are having
>   so much fun designing individual models or perhaps because there just
>   isn't a large enough collection of models out there to pick & choose from
>   yet.  I think as time goes on, however, there will be more and more
>   scenes...the law of increasing returns applies here.
> 
>   Copyright/credit/authorship issues associated with this -could- be
>   worked around entirely by requiring that the author of a model agrees
>   that it is fair game for someone else to include it in something they
>   create, so long as they give credit where credit is due or not ever
>   deleting any '0 Author:' lines.

Is that where my Hoth Battle would come in? I think it would be a good idea
and would encourage others to do some of their own.

> 
> Anything I missed?  Any new ones?  (Don't hesitate to speak up!)

I'll think about it :)

Ryan

> --Todd



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
 
(...) Yes, your Hoth Battle scene is a great example of the types of things that could go in this group. In fact, your battle scene was what inspired the idea for the group. --Todd (27 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
 
(...) I like those. I think "sets" is a lot clearer than anything containing the letters "tlg", especially when placed alongside "parts" or "elements" and "creations." It's also nice and short, easy to type. :) OK, let's summarize all of the (...) (27 years ago, 13-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
    

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