File Archive Work - COMMUNITY INPUT APPRECIATED

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kusak3

Active Member
Took me a minute to wrap my brain around it but I like it. Looking good. And I see where you put them back up but yes please keep the OBJ's where they can be semi found.

Good work and Thank you Chernobyl.
 

Chernobyl

Sr Member
Took me a minute to wrap my brain around it but I like it. Looking good.
As I said, it'll take a while for the older members, who have gotten used to the old system, to adapt to the new system. Even I myself still find myself stopping for a second and going 'uhhhhhh...' before realising and going ahead with what I need to do.

And I see where you put them back up but yes please keep the OBJ's where they can be semi found.
They're about as visible as they can be at this current point - my main issues with the Archive now are with formatting, mainly. I'd prefer to have the splash page laid out more like this:

[FACTION 1]
(Description of faction)
Sub-Categories:
- (Thumbnail A) Category A
- (Thumbnail B) Category B
- (Thumbnail C) Category C
- (Thumbnail D) Category D
- (Thumbnail E) Category E

----------

[FACTION 2]
(Description of faction)
Sub-Categories:
- (Thumbnail F) Category F
- (Thumbnail G) Category G
- (Thumbnail H) Category H
- (Thumbnail I) Category I
- (Thumbnail J) Category J

Instead of the system we currently have, which is:

[FACTION 1]
(Description of faction)
Sub-Categories:
- (Thumbnail A) Category A - (Thumbnail B) Category B - (Thumbnail C) Category C- (Thumbnail D) Category D - (Thumbnail E) Category E

The current system is quite jumbled, and from the splash pages it can be very difficult for a member to navigate without artificially enhancing the font size on their browser. If the font size could be increased by one point (or two, at the most, without breaking the page formatting), and categories listed on their own line as opposed to as a single chunk of text, things might be a little better.

I'll put together a quick image mock-up later on to show off my point - it's a little frustrating that I'm not invited to Staff Meetings to address these concerns directly and get my needs recognised without having to go through several middle-men delivering messages for me, so that may be something we address later on down the line.

As for the OBJ Archives themselves - they're quite low down in the Archive, just above the Non-Halo section, so I may re-organise the categories to have them higher up the page. They'd be a little more visible.

Good work and Thank you Chernobyl.
You're welcome. Keep the suggestions flowing in!
 

Rartorata

New Member
As an alternative to listing a polycount for models, which may not accurately reflect detail or difficulty (eg where the model is curved), maybe list part count or page count (which would be (relatively) easy to extract from a .pdo) or maybe fold count or tab count (harder to extract, obviously less useful for foams) could give an idea of the difficulty in making a particular part with pep, and allow an easy comparison of different versions of a particular armour or weapon.

For example, UNSC>Weapons>UNSC Rifles currently contains no less than seven different versions of the Assault Rifle. Now, while some may be picky enough to only want, say, the Reach design, in which case it's just a matter of pep vs foam, others may just want an Assault Rifle. A parts count or a tab count would give a quick way to make comparisons between items' build difficulty and find their ideal compromise between look and difficulty.
 

Chernobyl

Sr Member
That's a fine suggestion in theory, but in practise it's a little more difficult to implement.

The difficulty of any given file is relative to the skill of the person assembling it - I can handle some pretty complex files without issue, whereas a newer member might have difficulty with even the more basic files. File difficulty gradings were thought of some years back but ultimately the idea didn't stick.

It's better to leave the 'difficulty' of a file as subjective to the person working on it.
 

Rartorata

New Member
That's a fine suggestion in theory, but in practise it's a little more difficult to implement.

The difficulty of any given file is relative to the skill of the person assembling it - I can handle some pretty complex files without issue, whereas a newer member might have difficulty with even the more basic files. File difficulty gradings were thought of some years back but ultimately the idea didn't stick.

It's better to leave the 'difficulty' of a file as subjective to the person working on it.
Oh, certainly, but a quicker way to check "Oh this model is 600 parts, and this one is 140. 600 parts would take weeks if not months just to cut out, so I'll go with the other one thank you very much." could be pretty useful.
 

Chernobyl

Sr Member
Oh, certainly, but a quicker way to check "Oh this model is 600 parts, and this one is 140. 600 parts would take weeks if not months just to cut out, so I'll go with the other one thank you very much." could be pretty useful.
Again, a decent idea, but still subjective. People should be able to tell from the thumbnail how complex a file is, the difficulty is still relative to the skill of the person assembling it - and, honestly, I don't want to have to go through a few thousand files figuring out how many parts each file has, and listing it in the file description.
 

Rartorata

New Member
Again, a decent idea, but still subjective. People should be able to tell from the thumbnail how complex a file is, the difficulty is still relative to the skill of the person assembling it - and, honestly, I don't want to have to go through a few thousand files figuring out how many parts each file has, and listing it in the file description.
I'd imagine it could be done automatically, perhaps with a script extracting the partscount from the .pdo. Now, I'm not super knowledgable about the .pdo format, but since pepakura shows the partscount in the corner, I'd assume extraction would be possible.

And to be fair, if, prior to me having downloaded them, you showed me the thumbnails of the 142- and 590-part MkIV chests and asked me which one I thought had more parts, I would probably have thought the 142-part one had more parts, with its visible coloured lines, and even if I'd guessed right, I'd never have come close to the disparity in complexity.
 

Chernobyl

Sr Member
I'd imagine it could be done automatically, perhaps with a script extracting the partscount from the .pdo. Now, I'm not super knowledgable about the .pdo format, but since pepakura shows the partscount in the corner, I'd assume extraction would be possible.
I'd have to download the entire Archive, have the tool written to enable me to perform that function, then individually input each value into each file description - there's no way to be able to do it automatically, and I highly doubt that such a trivial thing would be worth the time of the staff who actually work with the back end of the site. In long and short: too much work for not enough output.

Fine idea - tough to implement, not especially required.
 

RobotChicken

Well-Known Member
Why is it now spelled "armour" rather than "armor" in the File Archive? Has the site now gone British? :confused
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top