Establishing naming conventions for models and materials

[SneaksieDave]

Edit: Since this thread is bound to be misread, misinterpreted and dismissed immediately as something it is not - a reorg - I'm editing to add one statement at the top:

 

It's not a reorg.

</edit>

-------------

 

In looking through object and material names for sorting order fixups, it becomes clear that we of course have some inconsistency among the way things are named. This is understandable; after all, who knows if something should be called "large" first, or "blue" first, or "dirty" first? There are unfortunately worse examples, but that demonstrates the point. Because of this, I think it's probably a good idea for us to establish convention.

 

Here is a suggestion, just to get it out there and started, which if we agree on, could be considered for all new things coming in. Existing stuff is a separate matter, and can be handled (or not) separately.

 

Some or all of the following apply to any given model or material:

 

1. Object Type descriptor first (mostly for models, or very specific textures) - it's a lamp, a door, a chest...

2. Material descriptor next - made from marble, wood, mud...

3. Size descriptor next - it is large, small...

4. Quality descriptors next - texture-wise, it is rough, new, cracked...

5. Color descriptors next - what color is it? red, green...

6. Number increment last - which of the list is it? 001, 002...

 

There's of course some play in that; if someone defines a new size ('huge') for instance, it'll stand alone at first. But as long as the person establishing precedent does so within reasonable guidelines, they'll set a good example for everyone else to follow.

 

Material example (fictional):

slate_large_cracked_grey_001

 

Omits an object descriptor - it is a general, non-specialized texture.

 

Why is this preferred? Some existing materials are named by quality descriptor first (e.g., 'cracked_slate...'). This throws the user off, because they were looking for a 'slate', not a 'cracked'.

 

Model example (fictional):

door_wood_battered_005

 

Omits a size descriptor and a color descriptor.

 

Why is this preferred? Some existing models are named by quality descriptor first (e.g., 'battered_wood...'). This throws the user off, because they were looking for a 'door', not a 'battered'.

 

 

Your thoughts? If you have a better suggestion, please suggest it. It would be good if we can establish something official. We could put it up on the wiki as part of the guidelines, and all future objects and materials will be named in a user friendly manner from the start. If we do not do this, naming will continue to be 'humanly inconsistent' to no individual's true fault, but to the detriment of all users.

 

 

 

Argument in 3...2...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[greebo]

Are you seriously thinking about renaming shaders once again? This reorg will not be one I will be involved in, that's for sure.

[SneaksieDave]

...1.

 

No. As I was saying above, this is an attempt for us to establish naming convention for all new things coming in. We have more and more contributors and artists signing on, and without some kind of guidelines, we are begging for (more of) a mess than we already have.

 

Furthermore, I think what I suggest above is quite easy to follow, and has more than its share of benefit. If someone's going to slap a name on something, why not slap a consistent name on?

 

I updated today, and even just that yielded several new inconsistent names.

[greebo]

Maybe I was too quick on the draw, sorry. I'm fine with anything that only affects future commits.

[SneaksieDave]

Yes I'm hoping that no one really sees this as a big deal as perhaps just an amendment to existing guidelines, and we can just say, "hey, before you submit that nice new tex, just make sure it does this..." It should help things be more orderly from here forward.

 

As for existing stuff, meh that's another matter. We (or I, as in another thread) can deal with that over time if at all.

[Tels]

Yes I'm hoping that no one really sees this as a big deal as perhaps just an amendment to existing guidelines, and we can just say, "hey, before you submit that nice new tex, just make sure it does this..." It should help things be more orderly from here forward.

 

As for existing stuff, meh that's another matter. We (or I, as in another thread) can deal with that over time if at all.

 

I am really in favour of this, because with out guide lines, we end up in (even more) chaos. Consistency is good

[Domarius]

What about characters? I can't check from work some exact examples, but from memory there are things like "guard_builder" and then "house_guard".

[Crispy]

A good rule of thumb is to start general and get more specific later. So the pieces of information at the beginning should be the most general ("guard"), and the ones at the end should be the most specific ("builder", "house").

 

Also, nouns usually go before adjectives, since you wouldn't look for an object under its adjective.

 

For textures, I like Sneaksie's scheme. It follows this rule of thumb quite well and gives us a good base for consistency. For other assets, I don't think there's an easily-classifiable way to do it, but it should be fairly obvious from these two simple rules:

 

1. Put general terms before specific ones.

2. Follow established precedent when it makes sense (but only then).

 

This should go on the wiki, if nobody has any objection to it being policy.

[Springheel]

It should be policy. I tried to do that with the texture reorg already, and with any new models. It's just good sense.