To me as a user, and a reviewer, this is still a mystery. I can't say that I understand, or need to understand, the technical side of this spec.
Is there somewhere a "Texmap for dummies"?
What is the right way to do a texmap part? What is wrong?
When do I Hold-vote?
What size should the image have? Is there a right size? When do I hold-vote?
Resolution?
When should I not use a texmap?
Am I allowed to leave the fallback surface without a pattern?
In recent time we've seen some very simple files using a texmap image instead of a geometry pattern. Is that OK?
And we have also seen some very large and complex parts, but without a fallback geometry.
I think it would be great to have good example files, maybe on the wiki, to download and study.
How should a reviewing tool handle these rules?
I know that DatHeader will chrash if I try to review a file without a correct geometry?
I agree with Roland. We should talk more about the quality/demands on the "fallback" geometry.
Is there somewhere a "Texmap for dummies"?
What is the right way to do a texmap part? What is wrong?
When do I Hold-vote?
What size should the image have? Is there a right size? When do I hold-vote?
Resolution?
When should I not use a texmap?
Am I allowed to leave the fallback surface without a pattern?
In recent time we've seen some very simple files using a texmap image instead of a geometry pattern. Is that OK?
And we have also seen some very large and complex parts, but without a fallback geometry.
I think it would be great to have good example files, maybe on the wiki, to download and study.
How should a reviewing tool handle these rules?
I know that DatHeader will chrash if I try to review a file without a correct geometry?
I agree with Roland. We should talk more about the quality/demands on the "fallback" geometry.