Subject:
|
RE: OMR Filenaming Standard Change?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:35:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
826 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi,
> Like I mentioned in my reply to Tim, giving the .dat the same
> name as the .mpd
> gives even more consistency. The .mpd is named xxxxa-yy.mpd
> so if we name the
> .dat the same way, it has all the basic information(#,
> modifier, year) and the
> user doesn't have to switch thought patterns.
> "OK, I un-mpd'd xxxx-yy.mpd and now I open xxxx-yy.dat"
> instead of "OK, I
> un-mpd'd xxxx-yy.mpd and now which dat file do I open? Oh,
> yeh, main.dat"
> IMO it seems simpler and more obvious.
I agreee.
> I know that it had been suggested to have files for the
> box-back models that
> were obvious on how they were built, but I don't think this
> is a good idea
> because the whole purpose of the OMR was to have ".dat
> instruction books" and
> since those models aren't in the instruction book.
> Ryan
Maybe I don't remember correctly, but until now I assumed that the term
'alternate model' refers to those models in the instruction booklet that can
be built from the same set of parts. Just to clear my understanding, please
clarify how the OMR Standard intends to include these models. (E.g. the
black supercar can rebuilt into a black Fomula-1 car and both are in the
instruction booklet.)
BTW I aggree that 'back-box models' shouldn't be so precisely ruled by the
OMR naming standard.
Thanks
Ampi
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: OMR Filenaming Standard Change?
|
| (...) Exactly my point. 'Official' "alternate" models are the models that can be made using the pieces supplied in the set, and instructions are given in the instruction manual that comes with the set. this would include Technic sets and Technic (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
