Subject:
|
Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:39:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3889 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Matthew J. Chiles <mattchiles@gorge.net> wrote:
> 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.
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 up in the real world matches the assumed "intended" look. If
they all look the same in real life, and they seem to be funny, then that's
tough. If, on the other hand, there's wide variation in the alignment of the
pattern from one part to the next, it seems reasonable to model the pattern in
the way that looks the best. So for this part in particular, if there are
copies that aren't misaligned, then I think it should be modeled that way, but I
DON'T think that's grounds for a hold vote. Add a No-Vote with your concerns,
sure, but not a Hold. If all copies seem misaligned, then perhaps it's not
actually misaligned, but looks just like it was intended to look. For this part
in particular, I looked at the DAT file carefully, and I'm not convinced that it
wasn't intended to look just the way it does.
> 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".
I agree, with a few caveats. First of all, I think there should be a new
official header comment that basically says, "ok, but could use some work".
Secondly, reviewers need to be very careful about the orientation and
positioning of parts. There are plenty of official parts that don't have good
origins or orientations, and they CANNOT be fixed now, because they're
official.
> 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.
The only reason a part should be held due to BFC is if the part is
BFC-certified, but the BFC code is wrong. If there are errors in the BFC-ing of
a part, it definitely needs to be held, because otherwise the flipped polygons
will be invisible on BFC-compliant renderers.
The part reviewing documentation specifically states the BFC-certification isn't
required, though. If I authored a part (mind you, I don't), and somebody put a
hold on it because it wasn't BFC-certified, I'd send an email to them politely
asking them to remove the hold and explaining that BFC certification wasn't a
requirement. If that failed to produce a result, I'd send an email to the
admins asking THEM to remove the hold.
--Travis
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
