 | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:4.2.0.58.199907...omm.com... (...) Submodels used for ease of ldrawing may certainly be inlined. Also, I would suggest that we not make the subfile structure a requirement, but a "strong (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:4.2.0.58.199907...omm.com... (...) No. If it's unbalanced, so what? The main advantages of .dat files of official models will be present for either version: the ability to view a model from any (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) cad.dat.models.omr) will (...) and it will also (...) authors include (...) search multiple (...) would be better (...) what is a (...) pick up a (...) and get the (...) need flamewars (...) Like Todd said, I think 'OMR SUBMISSION set XXXX' (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) Good idea. So I take it someone who submits a model specifies which it is, and they also get to choose which version they model. But what if we have too much of one type, and want to balance it out? Should they be required to do both? And the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) How about two versions: 1. Follows exactly the instructions (Only substeps are submodels) 2. Modelling Version (Only moveable parts are submodels) Jeff (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
