0 Baseplate 50 x 50 0 Name: 782h.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
Size: 137582 bytes
Steffen=hold arezey=novote mikeheide=hold
Submitted by: tchang
What is the difference to our current 782??
I suppose this is some kind of "hi-res baseplate". I'd, though, want the changes merged to the official baseplates..
Moreover, I'm not sure whether making baseplates hi-res is a good idea. They're non-functional but on the other hand fairly visible. I'll pass my vote here. :)
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.