Subject:
|
Re: "Hold" placed on tyre (was Re: Tyre for this wheel, does it exist in the distro?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 May 2002 21:11:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2540 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Tony Hafner writes:
> In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > anyway... The number of segments used in the tyre to approximate a circular
> > tyre rim (sidewall bead) does not match the number of segments used in the
> > wheel that it mates with.
> >
> > This means that at extreme zoom you can see places where there is a gap
> > between the wheel rim lip and the tyre sidwall bead, and other places where
> > the tyre sidewall bead and the wheel rim overlap. Slightly and only visible
> > at extreme mag.
> >
> > What is policy on this? Is this a valid reason for a hold? The tyre has the
> > number of segments that it ought to because of the tread pattern it uses.
> > The wheel has the number of segments that it does because it's built using
> > primitives, i think.
>
> In my opinion, this may be a valid reason to put "(needs work)" on a part.
> Or perhaps that's even too harsh. However, I'd much rather have this
> version of the part than no version at all. The "error", if it is such, is
> "Slightly and only visible at extreme mag."
>
> The part is good enough for now, and passes the critical checks:
> orientation, origin, and filename. And it looks pretty darn good. At that
> kind of magnification, you'll notice other errors in the corresponding
> wheel- see how the axle hole isn't mapped quite perfectly to the surrounding
> circle?
>
> I hate to dig up this thread, but Tore had a very good point in a post about
> a month ago that I think we could all take to heart. I'll skip the thread
> reference, but this part of the message is very useful:
>
> "The parts I make are good enough for making instructions
> and overqualified for animations, but never good enough
> for the authorizing crew."
>
> ...
>
> "There is a balance between quality and quantity and my
> opinion is that this whole thing has heeled over badly to
> paying attention to insignificant details."
>
> My apologies to Tore for resurrecting and chopping up his post, but again- I
> think this is a valid point. On that note, I'm off to re-review a part or
> two that I reviewed a while back...
Good point and I would say "thanks" for resurrecting that. As a new reviewer
and a non technical one at that my concern is more that I would
inadvertantly let something through that was not up to the standards that
others expect, because I don't exactly completely know what to review for.
But your post gives a better perspective I think. Thanks for sharing.
Although Steve's suggestion (that circle primitives might be a good
approach) is a good one I don't think I'm going to ask for that at this
time. Who am I to judge that?
I am off to remove the hold from that part and I won't even be replacing it
with a needs work. It's plenty fine, looks great in renders.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
