Subject:
|
Re: OMR Filenaming Standard Change?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Jan 2000 18:16:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
620 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Imre Papp writes:
> Hi,
>
> 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.)
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 sets ONLY.
> BTW I aggree that 'back-box models' shouldn't be so precisely ruled by the
> OMR naming standard.
Models on the back of a box SHOULD NOT be included in the OMR because they are
not officially released sets, and that is the whole purpose for having the OMR.
I don't have a problem having a catagory under the MOCS repository for
'back-of-the-box inspired models', I just don't think the OMR is the place for
them.
Ryan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | RE: OMR Filenaming Standard Change?
|
| Hi, (...) I agreee. (...) 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, (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
