Subject:
|
Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:06:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4085 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, tell me about it! Me and a friend made a mock-up of the sign for the
Datsville post office:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=192884
The 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 letters, but not as
much as at the actual LEGO part.
When I made my first 3005-letters, I made them a compromise between accuracy and
visibility. It was more important that the letters were readable in as small
scale as possible than that they were true to the originals. Do you find this
philosophy shocking? ;) That was in the days when LDraw was meant to produce
readable instructions. Today, I don't know what's become of LDraw. A playground
for perfectionists, where nothing or very little passes, maybe?
> 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".
Why not keep to the tradition of ending the description with "(needs work)"?
Eg. "Minifig Flipper (needs work)". IMHO, there are already far too many useless
official header comment and META statement to keep track on.
> 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.
I fully agree. This is a very important issue when revising parts.
> 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.
True.
/Tore
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
