 | | OMR Filenaming Standard Change? —Tim Courtney
| | | | In some recent discussion with Ryan Dennett on creating some resources for the OMR, he brought up what he felt was a discrepancy in the file naming convention. We discussed this and felt it appropriate to approach the group to see if 1) we should go (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: OMR Filenaming Standard Change? —Ryan Dennett
| | | | | | (...) before we decided for sure to go to MPD and the submodel names we decided to go with. Like Todd said, that format easily crumbles, but we are now talking about the name for only the complete set's file. (...) What I'd really like to see is it (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: OMR Filenaming Standard Change? —Ryan Dennett
| | | | | One thing that I just thought of as I was making a set is that we also ought to have a submodel for hoses, just like we do for minifigs, that way all those hose sections are in their own file. We could name it hose1.dat, hose2.dat, etc. I think that (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: OMR Filenaming Standard Change? —Jonathan Wilson
| | | | | (...) Yes. All hoses and such like should be in a submodel. -- Jonathan Wilson wilsonj@xoommail.com (URL) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | | |
