Subject:
|
Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Mar 1999 07:42:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1775 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:46:51 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 23:46:47 GMT, "onyx" <onyx@flash.net> wrote:
>
> > i agree completely... i say we handle our parts/sub parts in the same way TLG
> > does... if glued-parts have 2 separate numbers, then lets model both halves
> > separately, then use any conglomerate numbers for complete elements.. if they
> > are hard-coded with a color, fine.. then we have a number that is hard-coded
> > referencing the sub-files... this doesn't seem that complicated to me...
> > the only drawback is more part numbers... but hell, we already deal with over
> > 1400 element files..
>
> I'm only alright with hard-coded colors, IF they are somehow marked as
> not being primary parts. I would not want them all listed in as being
> available for building, just because it would eventually lead to
> parts-overload. You'd get about a dozen differently colored 1x2 bricks
> in a parts-catalog, and what would be the point of that (for modeling)?
The problem is a bit more narrow than that. Basic pieces, like the 1x2 brick,
are not affected by all this numbering/coloring controversy. Those pieces had
a simple part number that is common to all the colors. So we would NOT be
having multiple colors of those pieces.
To a great extent, this problem centers on the numbers we have available for
certain unique pieces. Such as the chromed minifig pieces. Many (most?) of
these pieces are ones that have no number imprinted on them, so the numbers we
have really basically serve just as an archival/parts-reference utility.
The numbers for these pieces refer exclusively to single color or finish, and
it may even be possible that these pieces have no other part number common to
them.
So it comes down to this:
1. Include the piece as a #16 part - but use a three-digit number for it.
2. Include a second "shortcut" type file for the piece that is the correct
color, and has the correct number.
PRO's:
a. there is usually no marked number on the piece, so this will usually
not cause any confusion from looking at the piece and seeing a
number on it. And if there is a number, using it will bring up the
_exact_ piece, in the _exact_ color.
b. This will satisfy both the "I want every piece in every color" CAD/modeling
crowd, as well as the "let's be exact with the numbers" parts-reference
crowd.
c. For pieces with special finishes we could, if we want, have a special
category specifically for those pieces. That would help segregate them
away from the basic #16 colored versions.
CON's:
a. There will be some duplication of pieces in the inventory.
b. Duplication means a little bloating in the hard-drive storage area.
c. We will use up a few more 3-digit numbers. For those curious, there are
approximately 614 free, never used three-digit numbers left. So we still
have quite a bit of breathing room. And if push comes to shove, I am sure
we could figure out another temp numbering scheme if need be.
d. Some composite pieces, such as the dinghy, could be slightly confusing.
Just because looking at the bottom and using the number shown would
only bring up half the piece. But are we really so dumb as to not being
able figure out what to do? We can't make it idiot-proof.
> I fully support the idea that the LDraw parts library should be useful
> as a parts-reference resource. But the primary purpose of the LDraw
> library is to enable creation of Lego-style models on the computer. The
> parts-reference aspect should not hinder the modeling aspect.
>
> Steve
Now, it is primarily for modeling. At least that is what most people see.
That is what I see it for. And what I use it for.
Though I firmly believe that James' original intent was as a parts-reference.
One that was as accurate as possible. I have no doubt that was his intent
and would probably be his wish for the program. With that in mind, I do think
it would be best to try to keep the parts-reference function as much as
possible.
I believe that doing it as outlined above will satisfy the most people, with
the least amount of grumbling. Not doing it as above will alienate one group
or the other. So to me, that is the best compromise.
-- Terry K --
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
| (...) I wonder -- are there color-specific part numbers for the dinghy, because it is a compound element? So if we publish two sub-files, and no shortcut, we skip the whole issue. But not publishing a shortcut seems really lame. The "part" is final (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
| (...) I'm only alright with hard-coded colors, IF they are somehow marked as not being primary parts. I would not want them all listed in as being available for building, just because it would eventually lead to parts-overload. You'd get about a (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
66 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
|
|
|
|
