Subject:
|
Re: Tutorial on reviewing parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:42:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2157 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Andrew Westrate wrote:
| |
IMO, the most useful thing for a new reviewer to understand are that there
are three main things to be looking for when reviewing a part
1) Is this LDraw part a good representation of the real LEGO part? (is it the
right size, shape, etc.)
2) Does it conform to similar parts in the library? (does it have the right
origin & orientation, does it make good use of primitives, is it named well)
|
Good points, I think I’ll try to separate these in into a separate section early
in the tutorial.
| |
3) Does it have any technical issues that will cause problems for renders?
(stuff like BFC, bowtie quads, non-coplanar quads)
These are covered under the “What should I look for when I review a part?”
item on the Reviewer FAQ http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/reviewfaq/,
but it is worth emphasizing.
|
This tutorial was more or less meant to be an example on how you can review a
part (basically the way I do it, since that’s what I know). I try to include
pieces of information when nessecary (that may be scattered in confusing
compilations around Ldraw or Lugnet).
| |
The second most important thing to understand is that there is a list of
things that are NOT acceptable for a hold vote under any circumstances.
|
Well, I don’t recall encouraging to place “illegal” hold votes in the tutorial -
yes, I write about BFC’ing and studlogos, but only as “best practice” and
associated with novotes...
| |
- File not BFC’ed (which is *optional*, not mandatory)
- problems with the title (PT admins can easily fix this, just “novote” it with a comment)
- problems with part number (again, admins can fix)
- KEYWORDS or CATEGORIES you don’t like (again, admins can fix)
- using overlapping ring primitives of the same color (this is an accepted practice)
- the orientation of stud logos (if you feel strongly about it, feel free to submit a comment via a “novote”, but this is NOT an acceptable hold issue)
- items on this page: http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/l3pmsg/ which call for a “warn” (i.e. novote comment) instead of a “hold”
- problems visible in POV-Ray that are not visible in LDraw tools. (while rendering well in POV-Ray is nice, L3P isn’t perfect, and sometimes there are gaps. If the problem doesn’t show in LDView, MLCad, etc, this is not an acceptable reason to hold)
|
It would be really nice to have these issues+responses compiled in a single
document on Ldraw: Something I could link to without drowning the simple baking
recipe-style tutrial I’ve tried to make (like as: “...just start doing this, and
you’ll pick up the rest as you go along”)
| |
The third thing I wish reviewers would keep in mind is that we don’t need to
be prefectionists. You may see a missing edge line when zoomed in 1000
times, but which would never be visible when viewed at normal size, or when
part of a 500 piece model. Is it really necessary to hold for that,
especially when the file was first uploaded in 2002, and has been ignored by
reviewers ever since? I feel that there are a lot of frivolous holds on
acceptable parts in the Tracker.
|
Although a bit of a perfectionist, I’m not disagreeing with you on this, but I
don’t wish to represent either view in the tuturial ... “pick it up as you go
along” ;-)
| |
Anyway Niels, as far as the actual text you wrote, the only problem I have
with it (besides POV-Ray & stud logos), is that a lot of stuff you wrote
regarding bowties, non-coplanar quads, & fixing BFC really apply to authors,
not to reviewers.
|
With a lot of parts, you’ll find that you have to do it yourself anyways because
of inactive authors. But I’m basically including it because the new reviewers
need to understand what they’re looking for, and because the explanation of
those words (scattered over several Ldraw pages) are really fuzzy:
I read those
back in the days, but still had to have the concepts explained to me in the PT
before I figured out what it was.
Now I’ve made that graphical representation I
really needed when I started parts authoring and generally roaming the PT.
It would be really nice to have this included in a parts authoring tutorial also
(or instead): but this is not the one, and until it’s here... well, I’m just
spreading a bit beyond the subject to patch up shortcomings elsewhere
| |
All the reviewers really need to know regarding l3p errors
is to compare errors found to this page:
http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/l3pmsg/ and hold/warn accordingly.
The explanations you give would be good to have in a separate article such as
“What do those L3P -check errors really mean?”
|
I’ve already added link to that page
Anyways, thanks for the feedback, I think the tutorial will greatly benefit from
the general/overview comments you made.
Cheers NB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Tutorial on reviewing parts
|
| (...) If you (started as a reviewer on a part) start to do the edit of a part yourself because of inactive authors, your function changes from part reviewer into parts author. So how to fix those errors apply to authors, not to reviewers. Reviewers (...) (18 years ago, 19-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Tutorial on reviewing parts
|
| Niels, Thanks for putting this together. It is good to encourage new people to become reviewers, and to reassure them that it isn't that hard to do. Now, some of my personal observances: IMO, the most useful thing for a new reviewer to understand (...) (18 years ago, 18-Jul-06, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
