Subject:
|
Re: LDraw part library structure
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Apr 1999 03:11:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
984 times
|
| |
|
|
Terry K wrote:
> Anyway, thanks to Joshua Delahunty and his solution for the file-naming of
> composite elements, the general plan of organization of categories and naming
> of parts has been finalized.
You're welcome, Terry. A labor of love, it was.
<big snip>
> ---- xxxxCyy.dat ----
> This is the new one.
> Parts named using this system will be "Composite" parts using the #16
> color-code. "Composite" being two or more parts normally joined together in
> real life.
> These are also for intended for modeling. We need these because most composite
> elements do not have their "official" number molded on. And on those that do
> have a molded number, that number refers to the subpart into which it is
> molded, not the entire assembly.
> The idea is to use that molded-in number that is most visible, BUT also add the
> additional "Cyy" to the end. This will be somewhat more intuitive that using a
> completely random number. And at the same time *clearly* denote that the part
> is a #16 color composite.
>
> But what if the composite element has no number molded into it at all?
> Simple. We assign a 3-digit number using the xxxCyy.dat format.
> Of course, we try to limit that as much as possible.
Don't even worry about this, Terry. Either we're going to have a
5-digit code for the entire assembly that we can use, or we're going to
know the 4-digit codes even if they're not molded in. It would be a
very very rare case where nothing in the element wasn't known.
> This, essentially, is the same thing as the Patterned parts using xxxxPyy.dat.
> Using this system will give modelers the flexibility of using #16 color
> composite parts, even if they don't actually exist in real life.
I want to point out here -- to stress -- the beauty of this solution:
So many didn't like the idea of not using the most "visible" and -- to
them -- obvious code: that stamped somewhere on an element, but this
system allows for that. 30086P01 is going to be sitting right next to
30086 in the list, and will be usable in any color the modeller chooses,
while at the same time marking very plainly the element as an unofficial
code: a code that James might very well have chosen himself (GRHS).
<big snip>
> Whew! My "summaries" are started to resemble Todd's. :-)
That's a good thing, Terry. :)
> But seriously, I would like to express my thanks to Joshua Delahunty for all
> his brainstorming and hard work on formulating these standards. His ideas for
> using underscore categories and the xxxxCyy formatting for composites was
> pivotal. Although initially, I had my doubts.
Initially, ha! (I had to hit him with a wiffle bat repeatedly, folks)
<g>
> Ultimately, Joshua was right of course, and I thank him for being so patient
> when I was so adamantly dense.
Back atcha, Terry. The most elegant parts of the solution only came
because of your hard stance on the issues. The solutions here are
designed to (mostly) please everyone from every camp, and at the same
time -- most importantly to me -- adhere to the standards and tradition
(if you will) that James established from the beginning.
> And I would also like to thank Steve Bliss for his opinions and inputs through
> all this. Steve and Joshua were pretty much at polar opposites on just about
> every subject in this debate. But somehow we all managed to finally give a
> little here and there and compromise out a solution. Pretty tough going at
> times, with me in the middle, vacillating between sides.
Steve was very tough, and we each made the other think very hard about
this. I'm glad he was there to balance the issues. It was really his
stance on visible part elements that pushed me to produce the rather
elegant (and orthogonal) xxxxCxx solution.
<snip>
-- joshua
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: LDraw part library structure
|
| (...) I'm getting a mental image here... I'm holding Terry by the shoulders, and Joshua's using the bat. Seriously, Terry worked very hard to make this arrangement/agreement come about. I'm looking forward to seeing the results in up-coming parts (...) (26 years ago, 15-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: LDraw part library structure
|
| (...) Most likely true. Just trying to be cautious. (...) Good clarification. Thanks for pointing that out. (...) Only if they are as concise, well-ordered and logical as Todd's. Mine always seem to be a rambling monologue. :-/ (...) And those (...) (26 years ago, 15-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: LDraw part library structure
|
| (...) I've been hit numerous times (upside the head, base of the neck, whammo to the ear, flat across the noggin, and more) by Joshua's wiffle bat over the past *5* years -- and I feel all the smarter for it. I've got my own bat, of course, for when (...) (26 years ago, 17-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | LDraw part library structure
|
| The shape of things to come......... I have been remiss in posting this. Dang combination of tax-season and my rampant procrastination. :-) Anyway, thanks to Joshua Delahunty and his solution for the file-naming of composite elements, the general (...) (26 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
10 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
|
|
|
|
