 | | 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (18 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 (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
