Login

Evert-Jan Boer · (This post was last modified: 2014-01-31, 19:51 by Willy Tschager.)

Below this post I will add (allmost all) Star Wars Mini Models

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-27, 18:18

TIE Advanced in pursuit of a X-Wing Fighter!

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-27, 18:21

Always nice to view this scene again

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-27, 18:24

I do think the snowspeeder should be larger compared to the AT-ST Smile

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-27, 18:27

Hot pursuit

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-27, 18:28

..

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-27, 18:30

...

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-27, 18:31

....

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-27, 18:32

This completes the first two series of SW Mini sets. Each set contained extra pieces for two bonus models, a TIE Bomber and Y-Wing. Will post these two also.

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-27, 18:35

Note: this model contains unofficial parts (30361ps4), this part has been added recently so it may not be in your library yet.

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-27, 18:37

Will post more SW Mini models later this week

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-30, 19:24

.

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-30, 19:26

Updated, original file included non-official assembly

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-30, 19:28

.

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-07-30, 19:32

And the last one for today

- updated with patterned parts, thanks Damien! -

Damien Roux · 2011-08-02, 23:24

This one is using a assembled hinge part (3937c22.dat). You'd better use the two hinge parts separately. This will allow anyone to fully open the model without the neee to get this c22 part, which I think is not an official one.

Damien Roux · 2011-08-02, 23:29

You can update this one using the two patterned wedge parts I've put on the part tracker: 41747ps1 and 41748ps1.

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-08-06, 9:29

Noticed the patterened wedge on the tracker, but isn't the wrong wedge being used? According to the inventory is should be 48933, not 6069.

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-08-06, 9:32

.

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-08-06, 9:34

.

Evert-Jan Boer · 2011-08-06, 9:36

.

Damien Roux · 2011-08-07, 2:02

I don't really understand what is the difference between 6069 and 48933 but Peeron is telling it is 6069px11 not the other. I'll make some investiagation before changing anything. Where did you find that it should be a 48933? Thanks for pointing this out anyway.

EDIT: 48933ps1 is on the part tracker. Forget about 6069ps3 which will be deleted soon.

Jude Parrill · 2011-12-21, 4:47

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (No missing or substituted parts).

Jude Parrill · 2011-12-21, 16:22

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Greg Teft · 2012-01-06, 7:09

beat me to it! Nice job!

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-08, 8:07

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-08, 8:13

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-08, 8:16

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-08, 8:18

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-08, 8:21

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-08, 8:23

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-08, 8:28

Thanks. I'd been eying it at the checkout lanes for a while and finally sprung for it. When I got it home and saw what an easy build it was, I knew I could whip it out in MLCad in a few minutes. It probably took longer to make the render than it did to build it in the first place.

After this, I got inspired to build more Minis when I realized how many have yet to be posted here. I had several more ready when before you posted this, so I went ahead and posted them now (thanks for the kick in the butt). I intend to build more, so check back often to see what's new.

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-09, 7:28

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-10, 7:52

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

***Willy Tschager*** · 2012-01-10, 16:14

I would love to include all of them in the AIOI - unfortunately they do not respect the naming convention in the subfiles. Please read:

http://www.ldraw.org/Article593.html

An example can be found here:

http://forums.ldraw.org/showthread.php?t...09#pid3009

BTW did you sign the CA:

http://www.ldraw.org/Article349.html

Bye, w.

***Orion Pobursky*** · 2012-01-10, 16:25

If the models have the proper header then they're already licensed under the CCAL and can be redistributed.

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-10, 22:55

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-10, 23:02

Is it just the fact that I use "<SET #>_<identifier>" instead of "<SET #> - <identifier>", because that could be fixed fairly easily.

Also, for the record:
I, Jude "theJudeAbides" Parrill, hereby accept and "sign" the CCAL 2.0 (the Contributor Agreement) and give permission to LDraw to use the files I submit here as they see fit.

EDIT: OK, so I've edited all the files to fix the above-mentioned problem (I also made sure all the "main" files had a " - mm" after them in order to conform to the spec. The "mm" is meant to stand for "main model"). Let me know if there are any further problems, and I'll fix them as soon as I can.

***Willy Tschager*** · 2012-01-11, 15:25

Jude,

thanks for fixing them so quickly! However one of the main reasons to change the OMR specs was the desire to have a logical naming scheme for the subfiles. I hope you agree that "10182 - Ground floor - Hotel sign.ldr" is much more meaningful than some cryptic: "10182 - m1b.ldr". Using this scheme the subfiles also become more visible inside the .mpd - especially for the casual user.

I would love if you could use "Leg, Right wing, Cockpit and Main model" instead of "m-1, m1b or mm".

Bye, w.

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-11, 19:40

While I do agree with you that names like "m-1ab" may seem cryptic, I don't think that is a bad thing. If you look at MLCad's "Activate Model" screen, you'll notice that the "Name" column is quite narrow, and although you can widen it temporarily, the next time you open it, it'll revert back to it's default. So to me, having a short name there is fine. The key, to me, is having a decent description, which, as you say, is meaningful and useful. And if you look, I DO have descriptions like you mention.

When I look at your Cafe Corner file, I see a lot of repeated information, where you have the same description in both the name and desciption columns, which really seems excessive to me. Why not have a short, simple name followed by the more lengthy description?

And the thing is, there's actually a pretty large precedence for this as well: the LDraw parts. Once could easily argue that the name "3001.dat" is completely cryptic to the point of uselessness. However, within it, we also have the description "Brick 2 x 4" which makes it usable. Why don't we simply name the part "Brick - 2x4.dat"? Because the simplified part-number-as-name makes things much more easy for programmers and others to work with. Imagine having to work with filenames like "Minifig_Torso_with_blah_blah_really_long_description_blah_blah_pattern.dat". While that might be useful to some users, it would likely result in large headaches for programmers (especially if the "_"s were converted to spaces). Yes, a name like 973p3x.dat may be more cryptic, but it's a lot easier to deal with, and we save the description for inside the file, which will be visible to the user and make it easier to use.

***Willy Tschager*** · 2012-01-13, 11:27

Jude Wrote:If you look at MLCad's "Activate Model" screen, you'll notice that the "Name" column is quite narrow, and although you can widen it temporarily, the next time you open it, it'll revert back to it's default. So to me, having a short name there is fine. The key, to me, is having a decent description, which, as you say, is meaningful and useful. And if you look, I DO have descriptions like you mention.

When I look at your Cafe Corner file, I see a lot of repeated information, where you have the same description in both the name and desciption columns, which really seems excessive to me. Why not have a short, simple name followed by the more lengthy description?

I went for the "lot of repeated information" in order to have a non-cryptic description in MLCad's Active model drop-down list. Since the whole discussion is merely about "taste" I'm gonna add your models to the AIOI either way.

w.

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-13, 20:43

Willy,

I agree that this is largely a matter of taste/opinion. However, that doesn't mean I'm above compromise.

To be honest, I used to use similar naming conventions to what you use as well. Then, I discovered the Old OMR Spec, which defined a quite rigid method for naming and describing models. At first, I was a little adverse to it, struggling with it's syntax and mourning the loss of information inherent in my old naming schemes. However, as I learned to use it, I grew on me and I came to value the subtle way it described models using minimalistic naming conventions.

Then, they drew up a new OMR and (apparently) threw out these old conventions. With only the simple statement "A logical naming scheme is highly desired" to guide me, I simply fell back to the old conventions, feeling they were very logicial. This is how I then proceded, until you brought the issue of more descriptive names. Now, I'm conflicted all over again.

I've attempted to combine our two methods as a compromise. However, I by no means think it's perfect. It's a rough draft, which I'm open to changing. I only changed one file, so I'll attach it here. Let me know what you think, and we'll proceed from there.

As a final note, perhaps this is something we should start a new topic for discussing? (Or perhaps an agreeable Admin would be willing to slice this discussion off into a new topic for us.)

***Orion Pobursky*** · 2012-01-13, 21:42

My intent was to ease the restrictions, not increase them. That's why I left the naming of the submodels up to the descetion of the author. My personal criteria for acceptance is much lower for models than it is for parts and I'd rather not lock out potential authors with too many rules.

***Willy Tschager*** · 2012-01-16, 21:50

Jude,

Jude Wrote:It's a rough draft, which I'm open to changing. I only changed one file, so I'll attach it here. Let me know what you think, and we'll proceed from there.

No need to change anything. I've already added them to the AIOI which should go live in a few days.

w.

Jude Parrill · 2012-01-17, 8:54

File is OMR Compliant and 100% Complete (no missing or substituted parts).

Ken Drew · 2013-01-28, 0:15

3219 - MINI TIE Fighter

Ken Drew · 2013-04-21, 3:37

20009 - AT-TE Walker

***Willy Tschager*** · 2014-01-30, 11:45

Added to AIOI. Thx for sharing!

w.

**Magnus Forsberg** · 2014-01-30, 18:27

Just out of curiosity...

What's the point of adding all these to the AIOI?
To me, the point of lego is to build it yourself.
Do I get to choose if I want to add all the models?

***Willy Tschager*** · 2014-01-31, 19:51

I use them as some sort of showcase to demonstrate people what can be build with the tools and it looks like it is appreciated:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/254196/ldraw.html

The AIOI will install them in your Document folder but allows to change it if you don't want them.

w.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me