 | | Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Michael Heidemann
|
| | | I got a hold vote some time ago to the part: (URL) do not agree with Steffen. I think we should try to be realistic. What is your opinion? And what is the opinion of the admins? cu MikeHeide (17 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | (...) Personally I prefer parts to look as they look not as they "should" look. Sometimes you can even use these imperfections to achieve good effects. Tim (17 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Matthew J. Chiles
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Kelly McKiernan
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) - 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 (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Matthew J. Chiles
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) "A playground for perfectionists" Excellent summary of what I am trying to say. Most of us are not perfectionists even if we would like to be, and we don't have time to be perfectionists. But we do want useable parts. There is a step below (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Didier Enjary
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) You're right MAtt, "Only the best is good enough" but "la surqualité est de la non-qualité" (overquality is non-quality) and "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" (better is enemy of good). Didier (17 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I did a quick scan of the official parts on my hard drive. The most recent one with "(needs work)" in the part title is 30375s01 (Minifig Mechanical Torso without Chest/Rib Surface (Needs Work)), and it's from the 2002-05 update. There are two (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Matthew J. Chiles
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) An excellent idea. If my vote counts for anything, I say yes. Under the Needs Work comment authors or reviews could then note specific items that need to be done such as "Needs BFC" or "Underside needs more detail" or "needs more primitives in (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Have you counted the ones at the Tracker? (URL) are currently 30 parts or shortcuts with (nedds work) in description line. /Tore (17 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Matthew J. Chiles
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That is good advice because I have had more than one part I authored get held ONLY because the reviewer thought it should be BFCed when no claim was made by the part that it should be BFCed. BFCing may be a good idea, and if someone wants to (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Jan Folkersma
|
| | | | | | I had the same argument with Steffen about part 3010pt6.dat (URL) I have a few of these bricks and all of them show the pattern slightly off-center. Also online pictures of this brick seem to be identical. Therefore I created the digital version of (...) (17 years ago, 15-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Willy Tschager
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | (...) Hi Willy, In that case I would argue that the onus should be on the designer to choose whether or not to model the ideal or real pattern. If their part is a really weird one then it can be held but if all copies people can see are the same (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? (loads of pics.) —Willy Tschager
|
| | | | | | (...) THINK they should've produced" and I correct any printing errors, like (...) misalignment, shades of color... In the past I had the same (...) the patterns I made and it cost me 2 month to get rid (...) Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) My individual opinion (as opposed to the consensus opinion of the admins) is in general, I'd prefer the idealized pattern. Since mis-registrations cause many variations, it's 'better' to go for the middle ground. Since it's not always clear (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | (...) Looking at the comments so far we seem to be answering two different questions so I'm going to explicitly ask both of them: Should we try to model the idealised part? Should a part by held if it matches a real part but not an "ideal" part? Tim (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | (...) This thread also seems to have brought up another very important question: Are the current review policies too strict, preventing parts that are "good enough" from getting in to users' hands in a timely manner? I've seen a number of posts in (...) (17 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? —Philippe Hurbain
|
| | | | (...) That's why as a part reviewer I try to follow this guidelines and I am much stricter that my own opinion would lead me. Yes, I am for some relaxation of the rules in order to get more "good enough" parts. Philo (17 years ago, 17-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
