 | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) Yeah, tell me about it! Me and a friend made a mock-up of the sign for the Datsville post office: (URL) low-res picture shows just a little of the flaw, but the letter 'S' is just so wrong. We decided to let it reach below the other three (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) hi mike, I design my patterns (URL) the way "I THINK they should've produced" and I correct any printing errors, like overlaps, misalignment, shades of color... In the past I had the same problem with many of the patterns I made and it cost me (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) I agree that it shouldn't be held for this reason. As for the original question, I think that they should be modeled in the way that it appears they were "intended" to be if and only if at least one of the various copies of the part that show (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) - snippage - (...) I'll agree 85% with Matt. As a casual LDraw user, I'd love to see new parts being available more quickly, which might be done with a more streamlined process. What I agree with Matt about is perhaps redefining the level of (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) You know, this piece typifies the problem with the process and why no new parts get published, at least from my view. The burden of detail required for approval is too onerous. In this particular part the ice cream is fine either way - as the (...) (18 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
