Subject:
|
Re: OMR Submission and Storage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 20:23:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
950 times
|
| |
|
|
Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:4.2.0.58.19990722140519.00a18e80@pop.osiriscomm.com...
> At 02:01 PM 7/22/99 , Jeff Stembel wrote:
> > > Include them in the .MPD. That way if someone wants to print instructions
> > > with submodels separated out, they can.
> >
> > How about two versions:
> > 1. Follows exactly the instructions (Only substeps are submodels)
> >
> > 2. Modelling Version (Only moveable parts are submodels)
>
> 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?
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 angle, an inventory of parts used, and the ability to make renderings of the model. It's also
quite possible that one file will satisfy both versions.
>
> And the moveable parts are submodels version has to follow the best
> possible solution to making the entire part moveable in one angle change...
Yeah, and ideally submodels should be centered on their axis of rotation.
-John Van
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
