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 / 9389
9388  |  9390
Subject: 
Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Followup-To: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Sun, 4 Jan 2004 04:01:03 GMT
Viewed: 
1298 times
  
After formal running the MOTM contest for a month, I've becomed concerned with
the fairness of the contest.  In response to my concerns, I'd like to make the
following changes to the rules for MOTM in order to level the playing field.

- All submissions will be in LDraw DAT or MPD format.

- All submission will be rendered by the contest coordinator using a rendering
program of the coordinators choice (LDGLite or L3P+POV-Ray preferred)

- The voting page will present 4 renders of each submission.  Each render will
be one of 4 standard views

I feel these changes will move the focus of the contest back to the models and
not the rending process.

A couple of notes from off LUGNet discussion:

- The raw DAT code will be kept completely confidential and will NOT be posted
on the LDraw.org website or anywhere else unless permission from the current
owner is obtained.

- If the author still feels uncomfortable with sharing the DAT code, a page will
be maintained showing the current rendering standard and they will be allow to
do the renders.  This will be on a case-by-case basis and will only be allowed
with permission from the contest coordinator

As far as what the standard views will be, I like:

In global coords:
45,45,0
-45,-45,0
45,-45,0
-45,45,0

If you disagree with anything written here, do not just post saying you
disagree. Please suggest a viable alternative with your post.

-Orion



Message has 11 Replies:
  Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
 
(...) One minor thing. L3P's default view that most people are used to is equivalent to -cg30,45,0. I really think the latitude of 30 is preferable to the latitude of 45 for most models. --Travis Cobbs (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
  Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
 
(...) Just to point out - this discussion is only about the Model of the Month. The Scene of the Month contest would not be change. This would help sharpen focus of MOTM on the actual LDraw model, and SOTM would focus on composition, rendering (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
  Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
 
(...) clip (...) I can understand your concern as to shift the focus more towards the modeling side of the process, yet am concerned that it seems as if the rendering process will be come almost an afterthought if your suggestions are followed. (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
  Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
 
(...) If you feel that POV rendering gives too many degrees of freedom, why not define MOTM as L3LAB, Ortographic, renderings. Then there's no discussion of landscape, sky, Anton Raves' parts, etc. etc. L3LAB rendering also shows the construction of (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
  Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
 
(...) While I was at work, I thought of another great reason to switch to DAT code enties: instructions on how to build the model can be made available if the auther allows. There are quite a few MOTM entries that I'd love to build but can't because (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
  Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
 
(...) I was thinking, what if someone submitted a model team style MOC or an even larger Technic MOC, say a truck and they had added a very detailed crane behind the cab, from the rear view it could end up quite small and possibly obscured by the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
  Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
 
(...) I agree with this in spirit. Yes, bring the attention back to the models. However I do have some alternative ideas, or at least variations on the ideas presented. Initially I thought the best way would be to make the dat files available so one (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
  Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
 
(...) I agree with your ambition. It makes good sense to let MOTM focus strictly on the models and let SOTM cover more broader aspects of presenting models. (...) Makes good sense. And I would prefer that we insist that the submissitted files can be (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
  Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
 
With 64 messages in 4 days, the discussion regarding by proposed changes is good. I'm posting this message to refocus the discussion and tie all the fragments together. Here's a point by point breakdown of my proposal and some thoughts about the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
  Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
 
(...) I agree entirely with Orion here. And I also think that making the LDR file available for the winning entry would be a great idea, but *only with the permission of the entrant.* I recommend it be strongly encouraged. (...) [snip] (...) I (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
  Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
 
(URL) anyone have *any* feedback on these ideas? Orion? Please let me know (even in a private e-mail if you want) if you think these are viable alternatives or if they're totally not worth considering! I'd appreciate any comment! Thanks, --Ryan (URL) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

86 Messages in This Thread:































Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

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