Subject:
|
LDraw definition of non-functional
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 18:17:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1896 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Sven Moritz Hein wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> > If those are what I think they are, they're not allowed in official parts. The
> > tiny hole isn't functional, so it was decided that the solid stud2 should be
> > used instead.
>
> I don't understand why "not functional" is a criteria. Who says they are not
> functional? The LEGO® Company? We, the AFOLs, already "invented" many snot
> techniques LEGO never used. Are they forbidden?
> As a matter of fact, it is possible to use the small holes of the underside
> studs. A plume matches perfectly. I don't know any creations using this building
> technique, but if you have a look at Michael Jasper's creations (for example),
> plumes are very useful (e.g. for spilt beer:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1256146 )
>
> But still I understand why ldraw.org does not want this primitive: There are so
> many objects that are available as two types: With and without holes. It'd be
> much work to add a second version of all of them - and it would increase the
> chaos. IMHO this hole is similar to the groove of a tile: It is a feature of the
> element, but who uses it?
>
> So let's use stud2. But don't say it is not functional, rather say that MLCAD is
> not prepared for something like this, for so many new parts with so few new
> features.
>
> Leg Godt
> Sven
Thank you for supporting our efforts to minimise the parts library "bloat" by
not asking for this duplication of basic parts. In this case there is nothing to
prevent LDraw modellers from placing a plume where it could fit into the tiny
hole in an underside stud3.
We typically use the "non-functional" argument to avoid having to model the many
slight changes made to basic bricks and plates over the years - many of which
improve the clutch or reduce the ABS, but are less than 1LDU in size and the
presence or absence of which have minimal effect on the rendered model.
I'd prefer parts author effort to be directed at increasing the overall breadth
of the library, rather than increasing its ability to capture minute variations.
It's a subjective decision, of course, and I wouldn't claim that we are always
totally consistent - just trying to steer a middle road.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New parts
|
| (...) I don't understand why "not functional" is a criteria. Who says they are not functional? The LEGO® Company? We, the AFOLs, already "invented" many snot techniques LEGO never used. Are they forbidden? As a matter of fact, it is possible to use (...) (18 years ago, 28-Apr-06, to lugnet.cad)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
