New !COLOUR finish

[Travis Cobbs]

It has been requested that we set up a new !COLOUR MATERIAL to deal with fabric materials:

https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28335.html

In my opinion, this would probably be better as a new finish, instead of adding MATERIAL FABRIC <blah blah blah>. There are a number of different fabric materials, and I feel that each should be supported. At the minimum, we have:

• Standard minifigure capes
  
• Qui-Gon Poncho
  
• Buildable Boba Fett cloth pauldron (Is this the same material as the poncho above?)
  
• String (are there multiple types of LEGO string?)
  
• Sails (same material as minifigure capes?)
  
• Tepee/covered wagon
  

The other thread (that anyone can post to) died off, so it doesn't seem like anybody other than Willy wants to provide input, so I am proposing to add FABRIC as a new !COLOUR finish, with a required type being one of the following values:

• CAPE
  
• VELVET
  
• CANVAS
  
• STRING
  

Example for buildable Darth Vader's cape:

Code:

0 !COLOUR Black_Velvet CODE 999 VALUE #0A0A0A EDGE #808080 FABRIC VELVET

[Roland Melkert]

It has been requested that we set up a new !COLOUR MATERIAL to deal with fabric materials

I'm ok with adding fabric.

The only weird thing to me is 'CAPE' as that's more a usage of fabric, not its kind.

Shouldn't that be 'CLOTH' or something more generic?

[Travis Cobbs]

I'm ok with adding fabric.

The only weird thing to me is 'CAPE' as that's more a usage of fabric, not its kind.

Shouldn't that be 'CLOTH' or something more generic?

Could we make the type be optional, and have the minifig cape material be the default when the type is not specified? I get your point about CAPE, but I don't like "FABRIC CLOTH", since those are just synonyms.

[Orion Pobursky]

The spec assumes one word for the finish, to prevent breaking current parsing we'd have to do FABRIC_<style> for each. Having FABRIC in the MATERIAL makes adding things easier.

Since the "cape" fabric is by far the most common, I think Travis's suggestion is FABRIC with no qualifier defaulting to "cape" fabiric is fine..

[Travis Cobbs]

The spec assumes one word for the finish, to prevent breaking current parsing we'd have to do FABRIC_<style> for each. Having FABRIC in the MATERIAL makes adding things easier.

Since the "cape" fabric is by far the most common, I think Travis's suggestion is FABRIC with no qualifier defaulting to "cape" fabiric is fine..

That's a good point. Since MATERIAL allowed params, I thought that adding a new finish of FABRIC could also allow params, but while this may be the case, it could indeed trip up parsers that are not expecting params to be present on anything other than MATERIAL. Based on this, I guess a better proposal would be to add:

1. MATERIAL FABRIC
   
2. MATERIAL FABRIC VELVET
   
3. MATERIAL FABRIC CANVAS
   
4. MATERIAL FABRIC STRING
   

Option 1 would be used for minifig capes.

[Roland Melkert]

That's a good point. Since MATERIAL allowed params, I thought that adding a new finish of FABRIC could also allow params, but while this may be the case, it could indeed trip up parsers that are not expecting params to be present on anything other than MATERIAL. Based on this, I guess a better proposal would be to add:

1. MATERIAL FABRIC
   
2. MATERIAL FABRIC VELVET
   
3. MATERIAL FABRIC CANVAS
   
4. MATERIAL FABRIC STRING
   

Option 1 would be used for minifig capes.

I would like to limit the number of MATERIAL variants though. Limited to things truly variable like GLITTER and SPECKLE are.

Generic materials as found in real LEGO should have their own static name (like METAL, PEARL, etc) as much as possible.

This saves us from having to define parameters, supplying a description of feel and look should be enough for people trying to e.g. write a shader for it.

So in short do these materials really need parameters or could we do with just FABRIC, VELVET, CANVAS and STRING as-is (like chrome etc).

[Orion Pobursky]

I would like to limit the number of MATERIAL variants though. Limited to things truly variable like GLITTER and SPECKLE are.

Generic materials as found in real LEGO should have their own static name (like METAL, PEARL, etc) as much as possible.

This saves us from having to define parameters, supplying a description of feel and look should be enough for people trying to e.g. write a shader for it.

So in short do these materials really need parameters or could we do with just FABRIC, VELVET, CANVAS and STRING as-is (like chrome etc).

I think the fabric parts have too many variations for each to have their own static name. In fact, just a bit ago, I learned of the "fur" style (most recently in a new Disney set):

[Roland Melkert]

I think the fabric parts have too many variations for each to have their own static name. In fact, just a bit ago, I learned of the "fur" style (most recently in a new Disney set):

I think I'm ok with leaving this to the part editors / library maintainer

So I'm ok with the MATERIAL variants.

Are we going to define the parameters too?

[Travis Cobbs]

I think I'm ok with leaving this to the part editors / library maintainer

So I'm ok with the MATERIAL variants.

Are we going to define the parameters too?

I think we should list the known types, which I think right now are:

• <none> (standard minifig cape material)
  
• VELVET
  
• FUR
  
• CANVAS
  
• STRING
  

[Roland Melkert]

I think we should list the known types, which I think right now are:

Yes but what about e.g. 'level of furriness' or 'string stiffness' etc

[Travis Cobbs]

Yes but what about e.g. 'level of furriness' or 'string stiffness' etc

My understanding is that the push for this change is to allow parts to be created with reasonable colour finish values. Consequently, it seems to me that we only need to enumerate the possible LEGO-produced fabric options. I guess I'm open to possible further parameters for each fabric type, but it seems like spending time figuring out possible parameters that will possibly never be used would be a waste of time. "Perfect is the enemy of good."

[Orion Pobursky]

My understanding is that the push for this change is to allow parts to be created with reasonable colour finish values. Consequently, it seems to me that we only need to enumerate the possible LEGO-produced fabric options. I guess I'm open to possible further parameters for each fabric type, but it seems like spending time figuring out possible parameters that will possibly never be used would be a waste of time. "Perfect is the enemy of good."

I agree. 

Parameters can be defined later if there is demand.

[Roland Melkert]

I agree. 

Parameters can be defined later if there is demand.

So the only thing left to do is determine and vote on the keyword list, I'm ok with:

MATERIAL FABRIC
MATERIAL FABRIC VELVET
MATERIAL FABRIC CANVAS
MATERIAL FABRIC STRING

Not sure about FUR though, I think that's more like a parameter of the base FABRIC.

[Orion Pobursky]

So the only thing left to do is determine and vote on the keyword list, I'm ok with:

MATERIAL FABRIC
MATERIAL FABRIC VELVET
MATERIAL FABRIC CANVAS
MATERIAL FABRIC STRING

Not sure about FUR though, I think that's more like a parameter of the base FABRIC.

Yup, MATERIAL FABRIC FUR

[Orion Pobursky]

Here's the draft:
https://www.ldraw.org/fabric-draft.html

[Willy Tschager]

Here's the draft:
https://www.ldraw.org/fabric-draft.html

Dear LSB,

if you are ok with the draft please vote.

w.

[Travis Cobbs]

Here's the draft:
https://www.ldraw.org/fabric-draft.html

You asked us to proofread the draft. Just to check, all you did is add the following two lines, correct?

FABRIC [VELVET | CANVAS | STRING | FUR]

and

FABRIC is used to specify a surface finish for fabric. Omitting the second qualfier assumes a finish similar to the fabric used in Minifig capes.

Assuming this is correct, I did proof these before calling for votes, but I somehow missed the misspelling of "qualifier" as "qualfier". Everything else looks fine, though.

[Orion Pobursky]

You asked us to proofread the draft. Just to check, all you did is add the following two lines, correct?
Assuming this is correct, I did proof these before calling for votes, but I somehow missed the misspelling of "qualifier" as "qualfier". Everything else looks fine, though.

Yes and fixed. Thanks.