Loading...
> >

Curl Me Hair question

Doc AcmeDoc Acme Posts: 1,153
in The Commons

I just picked up Curl Me Hair. https://www.daz3d.com/curl-me-hair-for-genesis-3-and-8-females

Fun product but was wondering about the .dsa files in the Documents tab.  All of them only have: // DAZ Studio version 3.0  filetype DAZ Script, and that's it.

Something missing?

Comments

  • Catherine3678abCatherine3678ab Posts: 8,556

    Product page says it has .duf files. If you don't have those .duf files then it's worth querying CS IMHO.

     

  • SevrinSevrin Posts: 6,313

    There's nothing in the documents folder on thie file listing here.  Maybe some files went astray?  Was this a DIM install?

  • barbultbarbult Posts: 26,485

    I think those are just descriptive files to separate the sections of curler materials. The files themselves don't do anything. They are just supposed to be a visual separation to help you use the product. They are only meaningful in the Content Library, because of the way the metadata assigned them to "documents". That throws them into a separate category in Smart Content. They no longer visually separate anything. This stupid (IMO) categorization is done to a lot of products with handy separation files like this. It makes all the hard work the PA did to create these files, useless in Smart Content.

    Take a look at the product in the Content Library, and you will see how those separation files work.

  • Doc AcmeDoc Acme Posts: 1,153
    Catherine3678ab said:

    Product page says it has .duf files. If you don't have those .duf files then it's worth querying CS IMHO.

     

    No, I have the Dufs.  Ya, a standard DIM install but running the Beta.  Thing the standard release has the same issue.

    Thanks barbult, I got them to work in more or less a trial+error fashion, but isn't that often the DaZ & PA way?.  Anyway, just confused if there was supposed to be an actual doc file. 

    Carring & Curling on ...

     

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,795

    OK, I checked that file you mentioned.

    .DSA (DAZ Studio Application)  is a extension in DAZ Studio that says the file is DAZ Studio scripting language. .DSE is same as .DSA except you can't read it as it's encryped. You can edit .DSA files others have written.

    What I think is those files are a remnant left behind by another .DSA script a PA or DAZ staff used that generated all the DUF & PNG files you see in the same directory as the DSA files.

  • NorthOf45NorthOf45 Posts: 5,740

    It is like Barbult said, they are used to separate groups of related files. This has been a common practice for many years, maybe less so nowadays. If a blank file was used, it would throw an error when opened, and zero-byte files can sometimes cause problems with the file system or the archives.

  • Doc AcmeDoc Acme Posts: 1,153
    nonesuch00 said:

    OK, I checked that file you mentioned.

    .DSA (DAZ Studio Application)  is a extension in DAZ Studio that says the file is DAZ Studio scripting language. .DSE is same as .DSA except you can't read it as it's encryped. You can edit .DSA files others have written.

    What I think is those files are a remnant left behind by another .DSA script a PA or DAZ staff used that generated all the DUF & PNG files you see in the same directory as the DSA files.

    Makes sense.  I just got the latest Poser updated, etc. (been out of town for 5 months) so perhaps a un/re-install will sort things out?

     

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,795
    NorthOf45 said:

    It is like Barbult said, they are used to separate groups of related files. This has been a common practice for many years, maybe less so nowadays. If a blank file was used, it would throw an error when opened, and zero-byte files can sometimes cause problems with the file system or the archives.

    The file names themselves or directories are a much more reasonable approach to doing that. If that's really why they no wonder it's no more commonplace.

  • NorthOf45NorthOf45 Posts: 5,740
    nonesuch00 said:
    NorthOf45 said:

    It is like Barbult said, they are used to separate groups of related files. This has been a common practice for many years, maybe less so nowadays. If a blank file was used, it would throw an error when opened, and zero-byte files can sometimes cause problems with the file system or the archives.

    The file names themselves or directories are a much more reasonable approach to doing that. If that's really why they no wonder it's no more commonplace.

    Sure, there is more than one way to organize the files. Judicious application of filenames and subfolders should keep it neat and clean, but that sometimes lead to "! Filename" , "!! Do this first", "!!! No, this one first, really", or subfolders 6 or 7 layers deep. That should be covered by Best Practices, but whatcha gonna do?

Sign In or Register to comment.