LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Full Version: Standard: Official Model Repository (OMR) Filenames and Headers
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hi folks,

before the OMR starts to grow I'd like to discuss this comment by Orion:


reading through the specs and I also think they need to rewritten. Especially the "Filenames for the Official Model Repository files are restricted to the MS-DOS compatible 8.3 name length" is ridiculous.


I agree taking the current spec to heart takes a lot of fun out of drawing and replaces it with annoyances, It's to restrictive.

On the other hand I do understand where it's coming from, uniform naming etc opens the door for batch processing and such.

Maybe it just needs a minor 'modernization', or instead of naming the models 'weird' and human unfriendly introduce some specialized model file meta's.

it would be ideal if you could take this to the LSC, which always came up with something reasonable beside being the place where new metas are standardized. I also agree with you that making a model should be a light as possible and ruled as little as possible.

The OMR had as main idea the possibility of making the same instructions as the original. So there is a need for to be restrictive in this case.
If you do not have fun in building according the specs. - build it your way. But then it is not conform. Thats all.
Hmm, I disagree with the idea of being able to recreate the official building instructions. I think this would needlessly complicate the file. What I do want is a uniform hierarchy of filenaming and MPD files mentioned in the spec.

P.S. Moving this topic out of general and into parts standards.
SUGGESTION: Create a standard to put sythesized (e.g. LSynthed) parts into seperate subfiles.

My reasoning is thus: Creating synthesized parts is often difficult and typically involves a fair amount of trial and error as one attempts to mimic the shape shown in the instructions as closely as possible. Doing this in a subfile makes it much easier because you can see the whole part easily, and can manipulate/change/delete parts easily and effortlessly. However, attempting to do this in large file can oftentimes be difficult due to them often being placed in hard to reach/hard to see areas.

Additionally, in instruction manuals (as well as real life), your typical synthesized part (hose, chain, rope, etc...) is treated as a single part. However, as we all know, synthesized parts are often made up of dozens and possibly even hundreds of smaller parts. By putting all these parts into a subfile, we can then treat the synthesized part as a single part in the main file.

As for naming conventions, I suggest using something like "-sX" where X is nth synthesized part for the model.
Some examples:
m-1-s1.dat -- First synthesized piece for first model
m-1-s2.dat -- Second sythesized piece for first model
m-1a-s1.dat -- First synthesized piece for first submodel of the first model.
m-1ab-s1.dat -- First synthesized piece for for second submodel of first submodel of the first model.
mf-1-s1 -- First synthesized piece for the first minifig.
Why not using the naming convention used by peeron and Bricklink which is: SSSS-I where SSSS is the set number and I is an index when several sets have the same number?

Using the release year, specially on 2 digit (TLC may soon have 100 years), can be risky, for example for promotional set.