LDraw.org Discussion Forums
Star Wars Mini Series - Printable Version

+- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org)
+-- Forum: Models and Parts (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-18.html)
+--- Forum: Official Models (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-17.html)
+--- Thread: Star Wars Mini Series (/thread-143.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

8033 (General Grievous Starfighter) - Jude Parrill - 2012-01-08

[Image: 02_8033.png]

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Re: 30053 (Republic Attack Cruiser) - Jude Parrill - 2012-01-08

Thanks. I'd been eying it at the checkout lanes for a while and finally sprung for it. When I got it home and saw what an easy build it was, I knew I could whip it out in MLCad in a few minutes. It probably took longer to make the render than it did to build it in the first place.

After this, I got inspired to build more Minis when I realized how many have yet to be posted here. I had several more ready when before you posted this, so I went ahead and posted them now (thanks for the kick in the butt). I intend to build more, so check back often to see what's new.

30051 (X-Wing Fighter) - Jude Parrill - 2012-01-09

[Image: 02_30051.png]

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

30052 (AAT) - Jude Parrill - 2012-01-10

[Image: 02_30052.png]

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Re: 30053 (Republic Attack Cruiser) - Willy Tschager - 2012-01-10

I would love to include all of them in the AIOI - unfortunately they do not respect the naming convention in the subfiles. Please read:


An example can be found here:


BTW did you sign the CA:


Bye, w.

Re: 30053 (Republic Attack Cruiser) - Orion Pobursky - 2012-01-10

If the models have the proper header then they're already licensed under the CCAL and can be redistributed.

20021 (Bounty Hunter Assault Gunship) - Jude Parrill - 2012-01-10

[Image: 02_20021.png]

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Re: 30053 (Republic Attack Cruiser) - Jude Parrill - 2012-01-10

Is it just the fact that I use "<SET #>_<identifier>" instead of "<SET #> - <identifier>", because that could be fixed fairly easily.

Also, for the record:
I, Jude "theJudeAbides" Parrill, hereby accept and "sign" the CCAL 2.0 (the Contributor Agreement) and give permission to LDraw to use the files I submit here as they see fit.

EDIT: OK, so I've edited all the files to fix the above-mentioned problem (I also made sure all the "main" files had a " - mm" after them in order to conform to the spec. The "mm" is meant to stand for "main model"). Let me know if there are any further problems, and I'll fix them as soon as I can.

Re: 30053 (Republic Attack Cruiser) - Willy Tschager - 2012-01-11


thanks for fixing them so quickly! However one of the main reasons to change the OMR specs was the desire to have a logical naming scheme for the subfiles. I hope you agree that "10182 - Ground floor - Hotel sign.ldr" is much more meaningful than some cryptic: "10182 - m1b.ldr". Using this scheme the subfiles also become more visible inside the .mpd - especially for the casual user.

I would love if you could use "Leg, Right wing, Cockpit and Main model" instead of "m-1, m1b or mm".

Bye, w.

Re: 30053 (Republic Attack Cruiser) - Jude Parrill - 2012-01-11

While I do agree with you that names like "m-1ab" may seem cryptic, I don't think that is a bad thing. 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?

And the thing is, there's actually a pretty large precedence for this as well: the LDraw parts. Once could easily argue that the name "3001.dat" is completely cryptic to the point of uselessness. However, within it, we also have the description "Brick 2 x 4" which makes it usable. Why don't we simply name the part "Brick - 2x4.dat"? Because the simplified part-number-as-name makes things much more easy for programmers and others to work with. Imagine having to work with filenames like "Minifig_Torso_with_blah_blah_really_long_description_blah_blah_pattern.dat". While that might be useful to some users, it would likely result in large headaches for programmers (especially if the "_"s were converted to spaces). Yes, a name like 973p3x.dat may be more cryptic, but it's a lot easier to deal with, and we save the description for inside the file, which will be visible to the user and make it easier to use.