 | | excuses website (formerly posted in a dat-group)
|
|
Hi, There were some major problems with my internet-upload-connection, but that's no excuse for the wrong newsgroup and the missing pictures. I've tried it again, with a few new POV-ray renderings and available dat-files. When I've finished the (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ring logo / Cover page image
|
|
(...) Would you? Thanks. There are a lot of really nice ones there. He is a pretty good artist. Right now I have the snowy mountaintop with clouds scene. Perhaps for the psychological effect it gives while living in the desert heat. :-) -- Terry K (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) IIRC, there wasn't any "OMR" at that point...but they both have the same exact underlying philosophy -- capturing a collection of quality models. I always planned to point to the models from the Pause-DB at some point... From April 3: (URL) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) Cool... (...) Ok.. (...) I think it should go to cad.dat.models for unfinished ones... (...) Ok, I was under the understanding that .cad.dat.models.sets was pretty much set and created without the OMR in mind. This works, then... -Tim <>< (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) Certainly! (...) Heck, I sure don't think so. The .dat.models.sets group was intended to be a serious thing. The only question in my mind would be whether to allow in-progress models there (i.e., without an OMR-tagged subject line) or whether (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
At 10:40 PM 7/22/99 , Todd Lehman wrote: [...] snippety snip (...) Right.. (...) Now that's making sense. I was following the assumption that nothing would change on cad.dat.models.sets and OMR submissions would be *allowed* there. Could we change (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) So basically no difference, really. That is, you can visually scan a hundred messages for "OMR" in a second or two -- or even faster with a script -- but where 99.9% of the time goes is verifying the quality of the model. So pulling down 5 new (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) If you mean 2429/2430, it's already centered! If you mean 4275/4276, you can use the method outlined in my LDraw Tutorial, using light.dat as a place-holder for the origin (0,0,0). You'll have to look at a couple different views to make sure (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) Searching through a potential lot of messages for the word 'OMR.' (...) But posting a submission to an OMR group and casually posting to a sets group are in fact different. One there is strict requirements for, the other there isn't. So it (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
|
(...) So do I. But I probably wouldn't subscribe to a sets or omr newsgroup by mail. It would work, but why not avoid possible confusion and go for 100% certainty on a completely new dedicated newsgroup? Some people might think that (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
