LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Guys,

in response to this post:

https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-24732.html

the majority of the SteerCo is in favour to add helper parts to the library but before a final vote we would like you to define a standard for these parts such as:

Naming convention
Category
Edges Yes/No on 2D helpers
Edges Yes/No on 3D helpers

The general idea would be to add these to the main library as the separate Alias and Physical parts library hasn't worked very well. In addition these parts shouldn't go through the PT for certification but be usable in all editors. Any input from your side is welcome.

Some example of helpers can be found here:

http://www.holly-wood.it/ldraw/helper-en.html

w.

Guys,

your turn again:

https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-24904-po...l#pid42727

w.

(2021-09-13, 6:40)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]Guys,

your turn again:

https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-24904-po...l#pid42727

w.

Gimme a bit to update the doc and then the LSB can have it.

(2021-09-13, 6:40)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]Guys,

your turn again:

I think we need a more defined text before we can vote on it here.

Or are you suggesting voting on all the sub points separately?

(2021-09-15, 17:45)Roland Melkert Wrote: [ -> ]I think we need a more defined text before we can vote on it here.

Or are you suggesting voting on all the sub points separately?

I already started the doc. The link is up thread but I haven't had a chance to update it with the new discussion points.

EDIT: Sorry. This post isnt where I thought it was. There is a document link but in the public forum, not this one.

(2021-09-15, 17:45)Roland Melkert Wrote: [ -> ]I think we need a more defined text before we can vote on it here.

Or are you suggesting voting on all the sub points separately?

For a more defined text you have to agree on the single subs first.

w.

I have updated the draft at:

https://www.ldraw.org/draft-documents/helper-parts.html

by adding the two proposals. At this point I'd say the discussion/vote is up to you.

w.

(2021-10-10, 10:23)Willy Tschager Wrote: [ -> ]I have updated the draft at:

I'm still ok with my previous thoughts (#2 proposals in Willy's draft).

Except maybe the description one as noted by Milan Vančura here:
https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-24904-po...l#pid43099

And a small correction on "The type or "qualifier" should be put here, e.g. "3D arrow", "2D arrow", "Arrow" (can be together with 2D arrow)"
I'm not sure it is clear I meant you can have the specific "3D arrow" or "2D arrow" keyword together with the general "Arrow" keyword.

Travis / Chris any thoughts?

Could the above be please ratified?

w.