LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Full Version: New header meta proposal: 0 !BOM
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
This meta would be followed by a short string (max length to be defined, 6 chars is probably OK) containing the length of the element (or any other string that would help distinguish a part from another). That string would be displayed next to the part image in BOMs and in editors parts bin. Counting holes or studs in tiny thumbnails of a part is tedious at best, distinguishing a 9L axle from a 10L one is next to impossible...
Possible extension:
0 !BOM V string
where V would be a "verbose level", the editor or BOM generator would only display text below some user defined level. It would be the responsability of part author to set this level at a sensible value, 1 beeing "most useful to be displayed", 2 "useful", 3 "if you insist you may display this"...
I think this is definitely worth to think about it!

Currently (source edits form Jan 2014) LPUB does looks for the last section of the title for on certain parts "Technic Beam", "Technic Axle", "Technic Axle Flexible", some RCX cables and VEX beams, to find its annotations.

There are indeed more parts that need annotations, especially later in the instructions as well, like the Technic Panels.

Do you want to use this meta command also for instructions and propose a default handling in the meta, like axles usually display them in a circle, panels, beams in a square? May be too much and leave it up to the instruction mining program.
Seems like a useful meta indeed.

How would you handle the level parameter though?

It might become very messy if at some point a new level is introduced while loads of parts are using e.g. 1, 2, 3. Causing the the new one to be e.g. sort of 2.5.

So we probably should use 'enum' strings for the level, that way a new level can be inserted by updating the spec.

Also !BOM made me think you wanted to list a models material list or something until I read 'part files'. I like Gerald's annotation term better so maybe !ANNOTATION ?

I'm I right to understand this is usually length related information, if so it might be useful to split the info into a value and a unit so software can convert the value to whatever they need (mm, inch, etc)

Just my 2 LSB cents Wink
Good points as usual! I agree that !ANNOTATION is better, and a separate units field is an excellent idea.
Is this still alive / wanted ?

How about, for e..g an axle 6

0 !ANNOTATION high L 6

or for e.g. a wire:

0 !ANNOTATION high mm 250

Making the format something like:

0 !ANNOTATION <low|high> <mm|L|ldu|pcs|mm2|mm3> VALUE

where value must be a number or do we need an optional (short) string encapsulated with " "?

Although I must admit I'm not certain the 'level' is really needed, what was your initial goal for that information Philo ?

Anybody more ideas on this?
What to the other LSB members think?

edit: forgot pcs could be used in generated chains etc
Seen from an instruction point of view there are currently two different ways to display the annotation:
- Number in a Circle: Axle Length
- Number in a Square: Beam Length and Type of Technic Panel.

In this case the unit for the length is what you call "L", for the Panels may be nothing, may be "TYPE"

Seen from digital building, the annotation for the Axles might be the most interesting in the context Philo mentioned. The Technic Panels would be pretty visible in the icon which they represent, however if shown it is not bad in my opinion.

Parts that may be difficult to distinguish might also be Tires...

so I would (at least) like

0 !ANNOTATION <mm|cm|L|ldu|pcs|mm2|mm3|TYPE> VALUE

e.g. for a panel:
0 !ANNOTATION TYPE 22
may I suggest
0 !INSTRUCTIONTEXT
or
0 !INSTRUCTION TEXT
or
0 !CAPTION
or
0 !TEXT
or
0 !TXT
just for consideration?
Quote:Although I must admit I'm not certain the 'level' is really needed, what was your initial goal for that information Philo?
The idea was to set some usefulness degree, and let the user choose verbosity level of instructions. Axle annotation is almost mandatory, beams annotation is almost useless for shortest ones, useful for medium length, very useful for long ones. Problem is that I foresee endless discussions according to reviewers sensibility...

Quote:Seen from an instruction point of view there are currently two different ways to display the annotation:
- Number in a Circle: Axle Length
- Number in a Square: Beam Length and Type of Technic Panel.
So, should we also have a style parameter + enum (plain, circled, boxed)?
Philippe Hurbain Wrote:
Quote:Seen from an instruction point of view there are currently two different ways to display the annotation:
- Number in a Circle: Axle Length
- Number in a Square: Beam Length and Type of Technic Panel.
So, should we also have a style parameter + enum (plain, circled, boxed)?

I think that it would be best to not include any style information.
Style is something that can and will be changed to whatever the editor and/or user wants, so it would be useless to include style information.
Agreed, style depends on personal preference. But this somehow defeats one of the purpose of the "Annotation" metacommand: avoid the need to parse the description to figure out what to display. I have trouble figuring out a coherent sheme between what is encoded in part, what is BI author personal preference and what remains BI software configuration realm...
Pages: 1 2 3