(2022-01-21, 0:00)Travis Cobbs Wrote: I don't do any building, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
I personally feel that having them available is useful. Creations can exist where baseplates aren't used as baseplates. In those cases, having the bottom be modeled would presumably be very useful. I don't feel that these match any other precedents in the library, though. So the "h" suffix could be perfectly fine, although not indicating that they have a modeled bottom in the part name seems wrong to me.
But I very much don't like Steffen's suggestions in the review. First, I feel that this is something that should be controlled by the modeler, not the viewer, and second, his suggestion to treat them like low-res studs would greatly increase the complexity of the flat bottom of the normal baseplate parts, which I feel would be very bad.
If the issue is simply that there are different versions, with different numbers, of identical parts, I agree with that concern. In that case I would favor anathema's line of thinking in this review: treat it as an optional substitution in the renderer.*
*Although sometimes it is nice to be able to select hi-res versions of only those parts whose bottoms are exposed (snicker), not all parts in the model.