Subject:
|
Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:27:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3439 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:44:38 GMT, you wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Michael Heidemann wrote:
> > I got a hold vote some time ago to the part:
> > http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/3004p07.dat
> >
> > I 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
>
> 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
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 part
actually has it in real production, or as it "should be". The part
certainly should NOT be held for this reason.
For the sake of L-Draw continuing as a useful platform parts need to
be pushed through and approved. Many parts approved long ago don't
meet todays strict standards, and they are slowly being updated as
authors revisit them. But for all the time since they are created
they have been in the system and they are useful. To continue to keep
the L-Draw system useful, parts need to get in the system so people
can use them as they are "decently good".
If not all quads are co-planer, so what, that isn't going to impact
anything. Invisible gaps between planes, or unimportant undersides
not detailed 100% correct should not be reason to hold up parts. My
personal pet peeve is BFCing - I can see the value, but can't see
holding a part up for it, especially with the high speed, high memory
computers we use today where a few added back-faces are not going to
make an impact.
What I am trying to say is that there is no such thing as a "perfect
part" in many (most?) cases. And the time difference in production
between "Useable" and "Perfect" is simply not realistic for this
all-volunteer effort. Lets accept useable (logical rotation point and
orientation, major details clear), and worry about perfection later,
to the degree and an author is willing to pursue it.
I want useable parts, not perfect parts. After all, that is what Lego
gives us.
-Matt :)
-----------------------------------------------------
www.auctionbrick.com - username mchiles
Matt Chiles
1006 Horseshoe Bend Rd
Centerville, WA 98613 USA
Phone: 509-773-5724
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
20 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
|
|
|
|
