[Solved] "h" Baseplates

[Orion Pobursky]

Example (Look at https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptweekly.cgi#2010-04-05 for more)
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c.../4186h.dat

Should these parts exist? I say no but would like to have a discussion before I delete.

[N. W. Perry]

Example (Look at https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptweekly.cgi#2010-04-05 for more)
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c.../4186h.dat

Should these parts exist? I say no but would like to have a discussion before I delete.

Exist, yes. I don't know if they need to be in the official library, but I do occasionally use some of the high-res parts and think they should remain reliably available.

[Willy Tschager]

Example (Look at https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptweekly.cgi#2010-04-05 for more)
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c.../4186h.dat

Should these parts exist? I say no but would like to have a discussion before I delete.

No.

w.

[Orion Pobursky]

Any more comments? They get removed from the PT tomorrow otherwise.

[Travis Cobbs]

Example (Look at https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptweekly.cgi#2010-04-05 for more)
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c.../4186h.dat

Should these parts exist? I say no but would like to have a discussion before I delete.

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.

[N. W. Perry]

So that I have the whole picture, what's the argument against keeping them? And is it specific to the baseplates, or all the hi-res parts?

[N. W. Perry]

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.

[Orion Pobursky]

So that I have the whole picture, what's the argument against keeping them? And is it specific to the baseplates, or all the hi-res parts?

I guess the TL;DR is:

Pro: It models the real world part better
Con: Significantly more triangles and complexity for what amounts to a cosmetic change

Steffen: We could have lo-res and high-res "studs". Con to this is the same as above

My take: I'd like to see a real world example of the functional use of these "bumps". Otherwise these are non-functional aspects that we have historically not modeled in parts.

[N. W. Perry]

I guess the TL;DR is:

Pro: It models the real world part better
Con: Significantly more triangles and complexity for what amounts to a cosmetic change

Steffen: We could have lo-res and high-res "studs". Con to this is the same as above

My take: I'd like to see a real world example of the functional use of these "bumps". Otherwise these are non-functional aspects that we have historically not modeled in parts.

Yes, the purpose of these parts would be purely visual, not functional. As far as I know there's no way to use any of these extra features as a connection point (although I would be careful not to assume something doesn't exist just because I'm not aware of it).

Because it's purely cosmetic, I agree these parts shouldn't stand in conflict with the existing ones. And because it's purely cosmetic, I do feel they should be treated similarly to existing methods of primitive substitution (indeed, the baseplates already come with alternate bottom studs for fast-draw mode). And finally, because it's purely cosmetic, I think there's value in them continuing to exist, because sometimes it's nice, even strongly preferable, to make one's models that much more realistic.

So there's no question to me that they should exist; the issue would be their place in the official library. To determine that, I propose following the unresolved line of discussion already started here by Steffen and anathema: https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c.../3334h.dat. Wherever that logically leads is what should be decided.

[Willy Tschager]

We are not talking about all hires parts but these hires baseplates and it is clear that they are not going to co-exist with the normal plates in the library 'cos it just adds confusion for the casual user - and he is the one this discussion has to have in mind.

The "h" are going to be deleted 'cos for the one in the million-case they are going to be used up-side down it just adds a nice visual touch with no functionality, while it increases the loading time for the million for an effect they are not even aware of.

w.

[N. W. Perry]

We are not talking about all hires parts but these hires baseplates and it is clear that they are not going to co-exist with the normal plates in the library 'cos it just adds confusion for the casual user - and he is the one this discussion has to have in mind.

The "h" are going to be deleted 'cos for the one in the million-case they are going to be used up-side down it just adds a nice visual touch with no functionality, while it increases the loading time for the million for an effect they are not even aware of.

w.

That seems to be the consensus. The "h" parts are deleted because any improved versions of the baseplates should be submitted as fixes to the existing ones, and subject to the normal certification (or not) process. And the already-discussed options for developing substitutable hi-res parts can be pursued by any author(s) interested in doing so (or not).

(BTW, the other J.C. Tchang hi-def parts don't seem to be on PT; I thought they were. Either they were never submitted, or were already rejected.)

[Orion Pobursky]

These file have now been removed. They have been save here if someone wants to use them:
https://www.ldraw.org/files/h-baseplates.zip