 | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) "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 (...) (19 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) 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 (19 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
