Subject:
|
Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Mar 1999 23:34:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1492 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999 14:29:36 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 1999 07:42:26 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K)
> wrote:
>
> > 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:
>
> > The problem is a bit more narrow than [hard-colored files for basic pieces]. 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.
>
> 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.
We could go that route, just have the two halves and no shortcut. The
important thing is this would still be an accurate use of the numbers, but
without carring it to the logical extreme and having the complete part.
> But not publishing a shortcut seems really lame. The "part" is final
> product that we've most-all pulled out of a LEGO box and said to
> ourselves "What in the Wide, Wide World of Sports possessed them to make
> this thing?"
True. Note that in this particular case, the Yellow dinghy, we could have a
shortcut using the proper number. But at the same time we may not have a
similar pink shortcut because we don't know that number. (At least I don't
know it - Joshua or Martyn may have it - but you get my point, I hope)
> > 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.
>
> Or:
>
> 3. Add a comment to the part, listing the official part number(s) and
> identifying the specific version to which they refer.
We could always comment to our hearts content.
> 4. Use the known color/treatment-specific part number as the number for
> the color 16 part file.
This is where it would become inaccurate if used as a parts-reference source.
Using those specific color numbers for generic #16 parts would not be right.
That is why I refused to have that antenna released under the correct number
using #16.
> 5. For patterned parts, stick to the nnnnnPxx.dat identification method.
> This is more important on general-use patterns, which are used on more
> than one color brick.
True. Common patterns on bricks of different colors would tend to create a lot
of duplication. So it is easer to use the nnnnPxx method. But at times, for
specialized pieces, the correct number could well be used.
> > 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.
>
> I will be surprised if there is a 7xxxx number stamped on a part. I
> think the stamped numbers will always be in the simple-part range (4
> digit and 3xxxx).
You may be right.
> > 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.
>
> Or we could just flag them as not being real parts, most likely by
> putting a tilde (~) on the front of name.
That is a possibility.
Or, if placed in their own category, it would be possible to have LDAO not
generate catalog images of them by excluding them in the INI file.
The important thing is, that for accuracy you could type in the filename and
get the correct part. That would be better than just having a comment in the
header somewhere.
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Good point. But do we *know* what James would want to do to resolve
> this situation? Did he have to deal with any of the 7xxxx series
> numbers?
At the time, I don't think he did. But I believe because he did not know about
them at that time. But he was in contact with Joshua and Martyn, and was very
keen (1) on using the correct numbers for pieces.
> > 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.
>
> All grumbling and nit-picking aside, I agree with you, more or less.
>
> Steve
I too have my grumbles and nit-picks about doing it the way I proposed. Just
ask Joshua and Martyn. :-)
But I am willing to live with the problem because I believe it to be important
to try to keep that aspect of the program as James seemed to want it.
-- Terry K --
1. Keen. I couldn't think of a better word. :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
| (...) LDAO could be set up to ignore any unique marker in the descriptive name. At this time, any user can do it themselves, by editing the ldraw.ini. The default settings ignore moved files, 'delete me' files, and light.dat. (...) I'm assuming (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-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
|
|
|
|
