LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Full Version: OMR Spec - Official Submission to the LSC
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Hmm. I didn't know that. I just assumed that since the set names are printed in 3 languages here in the US that they would be printed on the set outside the US too. I guess we can change the spec to the official LEGO set name in English, whatever one was/is listed on lego.com or Brickset.
Nowadays, I think set names are unified internationally, but in the 1980s/90s sets often had different names for the US and UK markets. I think this was most prevalent in the Blacktron I and M-Tron ranges. For example 6923 was Particle Ionizer in the US but Cosmicopter in the UK. Even in this era set names were not typically printed on the boxes for the UK market, as the same packaging was probably used across Europe.

Out of respect for James and what he started I agree that we should continue to use Australian English spelling for part descriptions, because the offcial LEGO names are barely in the public domain and many don't translate well from Danish. Set names, on the other hand are widely known, published in catalogues and of course popularised on Bricklink and peeron. I don't see the value in trying to locate Australian set names.

I'd take the English set names as being the ones. Certainly where I've had the chance to compare we've always* used the English set names.


* Except Dino Attack/Dino 2010 where the US sets appeared in our shops while the European sets appeared on S@H. I suspect similar has happened before. Australia is, I believe, officially under the US division of TLG. But our S@H comes from Europe.
Yeah, I had asked about the Australian names in the LSC discussion (probably not the right place for me to have asked, but I'm still getting used to this forum format).

Since set names are (to the best of my knowledge) only printed on boxes distributed in the Americas, I am guessing the U.S. set names are much more widely-known and easier to find than British or Australian variants. I think this specification would be better off preferring U.S. names where available.

Non-U.S. residents please correct me. My rest-of-the-world Lego experience is confined to European sets I've obtained through U.S. S@H.

Dear LSC,

one again, please ratify this as quick as possible.

OMR Specification Wrote:Each individual model file in the MPD must have a standard header format.

Standard Header:
0 FILE <Filename>.ldr
0 <Individual filename>
0 Name: <Filename>.ldr
0 Author: <Author Name> [Username]
0 !LDRAW_ORG Model -OR- 0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Model
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt

0 !THEME Theme name
0 !KEYWORDS words, more words,…,
0 !KEYWORDS words in second row, …, final words

0 !HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD [Username] Free text description of change. This can wrap to a
0 !HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD [Username] second row with the same date if necessary. However authors should lean toward writing longer
0 !HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD [Username] single !HISTORY lines(and not feel constrained to the historic 80-character limit on line length)

<Filename>: The name of the file using the rules specified in the MPD File Structure section
<Individual filename>: The name of the individual file using the rules specified in the MPD File Structure section
<Author Name>: The name of the author. Real full names (first and last) are required by the LDraw.org Contributer's Agreement
[Username]: The LDraw.org username of the author
Optional commands are !THEME, !KEYWORDS, and !HISTORY

Is it just me, or does it seem extremely redundant to include the THEME, KEYWORDS, and HISTORY for every single submodel of a model? Wouldn't it be more prudent to include this information once in the main model and let that be enough? I understand you are likely basing this off the standards used for .dat files and how each of them often include other files which themselves have their own headers. However, since the entire model is held in a single file, why does it need more than one of these? Considering most parts are often broken up into sections (which may or may not have been worked on by different authors), we don't see this translating into dat files.

And really, when we think about this logically, will a subpart have a different THEME or KEYWORDS from other sub-files? I can't imagine a case when they would. And sure, each subfile could have it's own history, but wouldn't it be much easier to understand the history of the file if it was all located in one spot. For Example:
0 !HISTORY 2011-12-01 [Person1] Created initial file.
0 !HISTORY 2011-12-02 [Person2] Updated subfile m-2aca to line up correctly
0 !HISTORY 2012-12-03 [Person3] Updated subfile m-1ba with missing part included in last update

This paints a much clearer picture the file's history than if the two updates had been put farther down in their respective sub-parts, where they're far less likely to be noticed. By including all the updates in a single place, it's easy to see who did what, when.
Per the spec, THEME, HISTORY, and KEYWORDS are optional so if you only want to include them in the main file then that would be perfectly fine.
One of the reasons for using prefix's in the submodel names was file splitting later on, this goes for the keywords as well.

But like Orion wrote it's the authors choice in the end.
After creating my first OMR model I believe that:

The creator set 4896 - Roaring Roadsters has 3 models in the instructions:
Set 4896 - Roaring Roadsters - Roadster.mpd
Set 4896 - Roaring Roadsters - Dragster.mpd
Set 4896 - Roaring Roadsters - SUV.mpd



is wrong and that "Set" has to be deleted, changing the "Base File Naming" example to:

The creator set 4896 - Roaring Roadsters has 3 models in the instructions:
4896 - Roaring Roadsters - Roadster.mpd
4896 - Roaring Roadsters - Dragster.mpd
4896 - Roaring Roadsters - SUV.mpd

Pages: 1 2 3