 | | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) Yes. Those that are non-instruction submodels but purely for ease of modelling are definitely acceptable. (I gotta remember to throw that one in the creation/submission guide) (...) Good thoughts. I would say that the models which do not (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) of rotation. (...) haven't been (...) everyone else (...) do?? (...) Just how do you center it on the hinge part of a 1x2 hinge plate (:-I I have yet to figure out how to do that, so I guess that means I've got a pea-sized brain too. :) Ryan (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) probably (...) save model (...) features (...) marking a (...) free the (...) I agree that a whole new newsgroup would be best, but I was just trying to point out that it would probably work. Not a big deal either way as far as I am concerned. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) Ok... (...) Heh... would be nice, but that's one of the little features I haven't been able to figure out yet in my pea-sized brain :) I'm sure not everyone else has either. Could that be one of the model editors' things to do?? -Tim <>< (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) But having its own group, even under cad.dat.models.sets, would save model editors time by not having to browse headers. And additional features could possibly be integrated into an OMR specific group, like marking a message approved or (...) (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... (...) 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)
|
