Parsable Meta-Data for High-detail vs. Low-detail parts and primitives


Re: Parsable Meta-Data for High-detail vs. Low-detail parts and primitives
#24
Ben Supnik Wrote:We have some folders in parts (s, textures) that are not LODs, and we may have future reasons to add sub-folders to the parts or primitives folder.

If we know that clients only treat sub-folders as LODs when they are told to, I think it will make future expansion of the library less difficult to plan.
I agree, tools should be able to tell what a sub-folder represents. We could either add fixed name configuration file localised to each folder, so long as it does not have a .dat extension or (my preference) add a single file in the ldraw root folder. Does anyone know if any of the tools would whinge if they found a file with an extension that is not .dat in an ldraw folder?

I'm not (yet) convinced of the need for LOD folders for parts, but the inclusion of parts/s/ and parts/textures (when that is implemented in the official library) would allow that.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
Re: Parsable Meta-Data for High-detail vs. Low-detail parts and primitives - by Chris Dee - 2013-08-18, 15:40

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 14 Guest(s)