On 2011-07-09 07:29:07 -0400, Nobody Special <happyposter@hotmail.com> said:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:07:10 -0400, Social Deviant
> <deviant@social.none> wrote:
>
>> I was sorting out my Bobbie-Model files and found several sets missing.
>> Among these are sets I thought I had from RARed sets posted back in
>> 2009 by TakkE that had the wrong images within the RAR. (For instance,
>> Bobbie-Model-031.rar contained images from set 02 instead of 31).
>>
>> I wonder if anyhow has any of these sets?
>>
>> 021
>> 022
>> 023
>> 025
>> 055
>> 057
>> 058
>> 059
>> 060
>> 063
>> 064
>> 065
>> 066
>> 068
>> 078
>
> You may be falling into the "set number" vs. "s number" trap. The set
> number as released on the Webe site (they called it a "gallery") is
> NOT the same as the "s###" part of the filename (although sometimes
> they did match up). So Bobbie set 031 in fact does have files named
> "m144-s02". These are not pictures from set 002, which has files named
> "m144-s40". Confused enough, yet?
>
> For your list, here are the "s" numbers that correspond:
>
> 021 (s082)
> 022 (s14)
> 023 (s083)
> 025 (s26)
> 055 (s15)
> 057 (s051)
> 058 (s12)
> 059 (s33)
> 060 (s079)
> 063 (s084)
> 064 (s061)
> 065 (s067)
> 066 (s069)
> 068 (s070)
>
> AFAIK Bobbie sets only went up to 071. I've never seen a set 078, and
> that doesn't show up as an s number either. It would be new to me.
The thing is, I did a file comparison of the images in the sets
mentioned, and they are identical.
--
Dev
|
|