LDraw.org Discussion Forums
Subpart texture file path - Printable Version

+- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org)
+-- Forum: General (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-12.html)
+--- Forum: Official File Specifications/Standards (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-32.html)
+--- Thread: Subpart texture file path (/thread-24107.html)

Pages: 1 2


RE: Subpart texture file path - Orion Pobursky - 2020-07-21

(2020-07-21, 20:08)Travis Cobbs Wrote: Just to be clear here, when s/123.dat references a texture, it needs to do so using s/123.png as the texture name (just like s/123.dat would use s/123a.dat to reference a separate subpart). Given that, then parts/textures/s/123.png would be where the texture file would go.

Yes except that the png filename will be the one referenced in the !TEXMAP START|NEXT statement.


RE: Subpart texture file path - Chris Dee - 2020-07-21

(2020-07-21, 19:29)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: Hm...
Don't you mean " s/123.dat would search parts/textures/s/123.png "?

The Parts Tracker has been changed to use parts/textures/s/ instead of parts/s/textures.


RE: Subpart texture file path - Orion Pobursky - 2020-07-21

(2020-07-02, 3:10)Orion Pobursky Wrote: There are no subpart textures on the PT right now (or in the official library) but I'd like to figure this out before it becomes an issue. I think the way the PT is handling subpart textures is wrong.

The UI on the PT submit page lists "\parts\s\textures" as the subpart texture file path

However the !TEXMAP spec states "a search for the specified texture file will first be attempted after adding a "textures\" prefix to the filename". By my reading this means subpart textures files should be in "parts\textures\s".

Revision done. Proposed changes in red.
https://www.ldraw.org/draft-texmap.html


RE: Subpart texture file path - Travis Cobbs - 2020-07-21

(2020-07-21, 21:06)Orion Pobursky Wrote: Revision done. Proposed changes in red.
https://www.ldraw.org/draft-texmap.html

I find the wording of the FALLBACK update to be confusing. Specifically, "... required if ... not used". In my opinion, the following wording conveys the same meaning in a less confusing manner:

Quote:The FALLBACK section is required unless the NEXT command is used or the geomtery2 section is missing.

However, the above actually changes the requirements of the spec, which I don't feel is warranted here. Simply put, the FALLBACK section is never required based on the original spec, and I don't feel we should be changing that. However, I can definitely see how it should be required in official parts if there is no geometry2 section.

So, my suggestion for the TEXMAP spec would be something more like this:

Quote:Note: the FALLBACK section is always optional, although it is highly recommended any time there is no geometry2 section.

Then, in the Official parts document, we can add a restriction that upgrades that "highly recommended" to "required".

Note that this means that NEXT can then only be used in official parts if the next line is a type 1 line and not a 0 !: line, while your suggested change would allow NEXT to be used in official parts even if that were not the case.


RE: Subpart texture file path - Orion Pobursky - 2020-07-21

(2020-07-21, 21:55)Travis Cobbs Wrote: I find the wording of the FALLBACK update to be confusing. Specifically, "... required if ... not used". In my opinion, the following wording conveys the same meaning in a less confusing manner:


However, the above actually changes the requirements of the spec, which I don't feel is warranted here. Simply put, the FALLBACK section is never required based on the original spec, and I don't feel we should be changing that. However, I can definitely see how it should be required in official parts if there is no geometry2 section.

So, my suggestion for the TEXMAP spec would be something more like this:


Then, in the Official parts document, we can add a restriction that upgrades that "highly recommended" to "required".

Note that this means that NEXT can then only be used in official parts if the next line is a type 1 line and not a 0 !: line, while your suggested change would allow NEXT to be used in official parts even if that were not the case.

I agree. I'll make the change.