On 2023-04-14 01:57 (-4), jr wrote:
> 
> unsure (did I mention I'm crap at naming stuff ? :-)), to me they're like
> interior + exterior, "qualifiers", rather than categories per se; eg CR's
> coronavirus, it'd be 'organic forms' and 'terrestrial fauna' primarily, I guess,
> and 'microscopic' too.

I don't think of viruses as fauna.  I still hear dieticians referring to
bacteria as "flora," probably a holdover from the days when biologists
thought bacteria were plants; but viruses have no analogous history.

> [snip]
>     Household/Office Objects
>         Computers
>         Furniture
>         Furnishings/Decor
>             Office
>             Living space
>             Kitchen
>             Bathroom
>             Bedroom

Would coffee mugs be considered "Furnishings/Decor"?

> [snip]
>     Transforms
>     Cameras

Great additions!

Post a reply to this message

hi,

Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> On 2023-04-14 01:57 (-4), jr wrote:
> > coronavirus, it'd be 'organic forms' and 'terrestrial fauna' primarily, I guess,
> > and 'microscopic' too.
>
> I don't think of viruses as fauna.  I still hear dieticians referring to
> bacteria as "flora," probably a holdover from the days when biologists
> thought bacteria were plants; but viruses have no analogous history.

yes.  dilemma(s).  fungi too cannot be categorised, really, as is.


> Would coffee mugs be considered "Furnishings/Decor"?

furnishings.  :-)  not ideal, but definitely not decorative (only).


> >     Transforms
> >     Cameras
> Great additions!

hey, thanks.


given that there have been no other follow-ups, I'll go with the last published
list, plus added 'Splines' (after 'Transforms'), and, maybe, something like
'Utensils' to go with the 'Furnishings/Decor'.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hi,
>
> yesbird <sya### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > I like this hierarchy, but only one question: what is a "Scale Model"
> > category ?
>
> thanks (still room for improvement, though :-)).  I guess I'm thinking of
> projects like 'Ton' does, eg.
>
<https://news.povray.org/povray.binaries.images/thread/%3Cweb.5d05f9ab6bc50fb5939601860%40news.povray.org%3E/>
>
>
>
> regards, jr.

Hi,

but Ton's project would fit in Vehicles>Rail. I guess it's not necessary to have
an extra category if the model is scaled down from the original. Nobody would
realise it from the image.

regards - Oswald

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > yesbird <sya### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > > I like this hierarchy, but only one question: what is a "Scale Model"
> > > category ?
> > thanks (still room for improvement, though :-)).  I guess I'm thinking of
> > projects like 'Ton' does, eg.
> > ...
> but Ton's project would fit in Vehicles>Rail.

just to repeat something I wrote elsethread, as I feel it's important: there is
no 'Vehicles->Rail' category, both categories/labels need selecting.  the
hierarchy is implicit only.


> I guess it's not necessary to have
> an extra category if the model is scaled down from the original. Nobody would
> realise it from the image.

yes and no :-).  take two hypothetical cars, one claims 'scale model'.  then I'd
expect to be able to re-texture either with little fuss, scale, and use.  but
say I want to make a monster truck, already have chassis and wheels, and only
want a body ?  then (I would think and hope) the scale model car would make that
an easier task, as I'd expect it to be built from parts.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message