Unofficial File parts/3334h.dat
Next File |
Prev File |
CA Header Edit |
0 Baseplate 16 x 24
0 Name: 3334h.dat
0 Author: J.C. Tchang [tchang]
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Part
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt
0 BFC CERTIFY CCW
0 !HISTORY 2009-12-02 [tchang] Made with Script : bp_hu.lds
0 // Holes
2 'hold' votes. (HHSSSSX)
Size: 20869 bytes
Required (unofficial) subfiles:
Related (unofficial) files:
File reviews and updates:
At Sat Apr 10 15:10:56 2010, the file was initially submitted.
Submitted by: tchang
At Sun Apr 11 10:50:16 2010, the following review was posted:
This part creates a precedence case which needs to be resolved:
The XXXXh.dat file models a different virtual version of XXXX.dat,
but in reality only ONE such part existed AFAIK.
I don't think that it is a Good Idea (TM) to have to virtual
representations of the same part in our library.
Either XXXX.dat or XXXXh.dat has to be deleted.
The remaining part then has to get the normal file number XXXX.dat
again. The "h" suffix does not make much sense to me.
The reason for creating the two variants probably was
to leave the decision to the user if he wants a detailed baseplate
underside or not. But I think that that issue should be resolved
not by this special "h" suffix, but instead the same way
as the "coarse" studs had been implemented:
all baseplates should be modeled with detailed underside,
and the underside negative stud could be present in two versions,
a detailed one, and a simplified one - i.e., one that isn't present
at all and models the underside as flat as previously.
At Fri Apr 29 16:05:03 2011, the following review was posted:
If we're keeping these, can we please change their titles? Having two parts called "Baseplate 16 x 24" in the parts-library is very confusing :-(
At Fri Apr 29 22:30:07 2011, the following review was posted:
coming back here after some time, I'm still thinking the same:
(A) we should not start to have 2 versions of the same part in our library
(B) our library controls the level of detail currently by using normal primitives or fast-draw primitives. the same principle can be applied here without modeling 2 instances of this part in 2 files
At Thu Sep 20 13:10:02 2012, the following review was posted:
Yes, I agree. I've been thinking about these for a couple of days now, and I would like to suggest the following:
1. Most (all?) baseplates either do or could use a subpart, which contains the bottom surface and possibly the sides. This is already done for baseplates with patterned surfaces, so doing the same for all baseplates wouldn't be a great stretch. For this particular one, we would have 3334s01.dat.
2. Create a second 'HQ' subpart for each baseplate type which is a plug-in replacement for the regular subpart: 3334s02.dat. It differs only in that it includes the HQ 'stud holes'.
3. The part (3334.dat) uses the first subpart, but renderers are free to substitute the HQ subpart in the same way that they may substitute the low-res studs, perform HQ primitive-substituion, do curve-smoothing and so on.