Subject:
|
Re: More on Stickers (was: Questions on Stickers and Certification)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:17:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
862 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tony Hafner writes:
> From reading that thread, it sounds like the only reasonably solution to
> both the bleed and seam gap problems is to author the parts and stickers
> together.
>
> Problems with stickers as separate parts:
> Nomenclature:
> - 6 digits for the sheet ID plus 2 for the individual sticker
> doesn't leave room for a dividing character.
Right. The reason I used xxxxxxa.dat, xxxxxxb.dat etc. names.
> - The sheet IDs will often be hard to obtain for older sets.
Hm. Not worse than for the small unnumbered parts. We could also use 3-digit
numbers.
> - Identical stickers appear in multiple sheets/sets.
> Positioning:
> - Stickers might be hard to align. Potential partial solution
> is to supply shortcuts to the stickers as placed on the
> "correct" part.
The origin is now placed at the center of the backface. This make easy to
align the stiker on the simple Tile parts.
> - The back of the sticker or the part beneath will "bleed"
> through the printing on some (most?) renderers unless the
> sticker is way too thick.
With 0.25 LDU I checked with L3Lab, Ldlite, POV, LDView. It did'd caused
bleed-through.
> - Some renderers (including POV) will scale the parts to create
> a seam gap, which will show the sticker floating above the
> part.
Yes, this is a big problem. To turn off the seam gap option cannot be a
solution.
> New Standard: As far as I know (which may not be much!), there
> are no stickers in the official parts library that are done
> this way.
That's true.
> On the other hand, some official "patterned" parts
> are actually parts with stickers.
I didn't know that.
>
> Problems with stickers done like patterned parts:
> Nomenclature:
> - On what do you base the name? Would you name the pattern
> after the "correct" parent part? Would you name it after the
> sticker sheet?
> Positioning:
> - You have to author a separate part for each possible
> positioning of the piece.
Right. These two problems led me to first approach.
> It seems pretty obvious to me (for what that's worth) that modeling stickers
> essentially like patterns is the way to go. This is also consistent with
> the current parts library in at least a few cases.
>
> You can look at this approach as being a bit on the "purist" side- if you
> follow the instructions in the set that comes with the sticker, there are
> only one or two possible places to put the sticker. If someone wants to
> muck with putting a sticker on a non-normal part, they can figure out how to
> model that themselves. It would be easier than many "simple" tasks (simple
> in the real world, anyway) that LDraw users already have to deal with...
> such as positioning flexible hoses.
>
> The naming issue mostly goes away, or at least becomes relegated to the same
> status as patterns. We could possibly switch to a different character for
> stickers: <part#>s<sticker#>.dat as opposed to <part#>p<pattern#>.dat. I'd
> actually recommend using "d" for "decal", though, because subpart naming
> might be more confusing with "s" already meaning "subpart".
>
> Note that if sticker faces are always done as subparts, they would be easy
> for people to use them in other places. Sure, they'd be floating and
> backside-less two-dimensional stickers... and people would have to look in
> the subparts directory... but I think that's a solution that most people
> would find acceptable if they aren't parts authors and can't do it properly.
>
> The sticker file could include commented-out code for a backing, or even a
> single commented-out subpart reference for this. That way it would take
> minimal file-hacking to get a proper sticker.
Your approach is quite acceptable for me. My intention with modelling some
stickers was to initiate a discussion on this topic to reach a common
agreement in Ldraw community. Establishing a good convention on modelling
stickers may open a way to fill up this missing area of Lego parts.
Now the first dual decision to make is: Do the stickers have to be handled
as 1. separate parts or
2. subparts with commented placing, referencing etc. instructions, and
optional part shortcuts with other parts (at least corresponding to official
Lego building instructions).
Any convention can be decided only after this one.
Tony has carefully summarized the pros and cons above. If the majority of
the authors selects one of the approaches, I'm ready to follow it in may
sticker modells whichever it would be.
Ampi
----------------------------------------
Imre Papp
Geometria GIS Systems House
email: ipapp@geometria.hu
web: www.geometria.hu
----------------------------------------
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
