LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Full Version: Star Wars Mini Series
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Jude Wrote:If you look at MLCad's "Activate Model" screen, you'll notice that the "Name" column is quite narrow, and although you can widen it temporarily, the next time you open it, it'll revert back to it's default. So to me, having a short name there is fine. The key, to me, is having a decent description, which, as you say, is meaningful and useful. And if you look, I DO have descriptions like you mention.

When I look at your Cafe Corner file, I see a lot of repeated information, where you have the same description in both the name and desciption columns, which really seems excessive to me. Why not have a short, simple name followed by the more lengthy description?

I went for the "lot of repeated information" in order to have a non-cryptic description in MLCad's Active model drop-down list. Since the whole discussion is merely about "taste" I'm gonna add your models to the AIOI either way.


I agree that this is largely a matter of taste/opinion. However, that doesn't mean I'm above compromise.

To be honest, I used to use similar naming conventions to what you use as well. Then, I discovered the Old OMR Spec, which defined a quite rigid method for naming and describing models. At first, I was a little adverse to it, struggling with it's syntax and mourning the loss of information inherent in my old naming schemes. However, as I learned to use it, I grew on me and I came to value the subtle way it described models using minimalistic naming conventions.

Then, they drew up a new OMR and (apparently) threw out these old conventions. With only the simple statement "A logical naming scheme is highly desired" to guide me, I simply fell back to the old conventions, feeling they were very logicial. This is how I then proceded, until you brought the issue of more descriptive names. Now, I'm conflicted all over again.

I've attempted to combine our two methods as a compromise. However, I by no means think it's perfect. It's a rough draft, which I'm open to changing. I only changed one file, so I'll attach it here. Let me know what you think, and we'll proceed from there.

As a final note, perhaps this is something we should start a new topic for discussing? (Or perhaps an agreeable Admin would be willing to slice this discussion off into a new topic for us.)
My intent was to ease the restrictions, not increase them. That's why I left the naming of the submodels up to the descetion of the author. My personal criteria for acceptance is much lower for models than it is for parts and I'd rather not lock out potential authors with too many rules.

Jude Wrote:It's a rough draft, which I'm open to changing. I only changed one file, so I'll attach it here. Let me know what you think, and we'll proceed from there.

No need to change anything. I've already added them to the AIOI which should go live in a few days.

[Image: 02_20019.png]

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).
3219 - MINI TIE Fighter
20009 - AT-TE Walker
Added to AIOI. Thx for sharing!

Just out of curiosity...

What's the point of adding all these to the AIOI?
To me, the point of lego is to build it yourself.
Do I get to choose if I want to add all the models?
I use them as some sort of showcase to demonstrate people what can be build with the tools and it looks like it is appreciated:


The AIOI will install them in your Document folder but allows to change it if you don't want them.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5