Subject:
|
Re: The future of LDraw?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:33:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
21908 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
--snip--
> I accept that you don't see my reasons as significant or central, and you're
> welcome to reach different conclusions, of course. I can only tell you what I
> know.
I think I see a bit better what you were getting at (and what Tore is getting at
too which is the same issue I think). I kind of do agree with you both that
making new parts is too hard due in part to an overzealous set of requirements.
It's almost as though part authors are expected to match the famous 1 in a 1000
tolerance if genuine LEGO parts. The header is just a symptom of it.
I've actually argued quietly in the past that the requirements are too high. I
believe that so long as a part looks right in its visible surfaces and uses the
important primitives that affect rendering (for studs and curves etc.) and has
its centre in the right place it should be good for release. I feel that the
library _has_ gone beyond that 'sweet spot' and into the realm of overaccuracy.
Ultimately I'd love to see parts put into too categories: good for release
(where the orientation and origin is locked) and locked in perfect (where the
part should never be touched again). That way the parts updates could happen
more frequently while the part design perfectionism in the library could
continue without affecting the end users.
Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) Well, I singled out the header-code not as the problem in itself but as symptomatic of a shift that's taken place over a period of years. I don't know how else to say it without sounding petty, and I'm absolutely not singling out any one (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
