 | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) My hints to new and more part reviewers Because it is claimed that reviewers are highly qualified people, some potential volunteers may be intimidated. I was also at first. I am not a part author and even less a highly qualified people (in (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | [Parts Tracker] Reviewing Parts FAQ
|
|
I took the current information available from the Parts Tracker, and the recent discussions in this group, and put together a quick FAQ page about reviewing parts. Please let me know what you think! I will be happy to receive any and all Edits, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
|
(...) I forgot complication #3: 3. If the file you are reviewing has an embedded transparent area, you won't be able to check the BFC'ness of any surface viewed *through* the transparent area. You can fall back on viewing the part with mytest6 (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Requesting another plug-in for LDDesignPad
|
|
(...) Ah, I see what you mean (or I think I do)! I don't have the time to try it out right now, but I look forward to trying this. Thanks! --Ryan (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think no. If it were so, it would stifle input from those who want to help, but have never (yet?) authored a part. I understand that one who is a parts author would possibly have a better eye for detail in reviewing; it would merely need to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes: [snipped ludicrously useful tip for BFC checking] (...) Uh, increase the standard day to 48 hours??????? 8?) ROSCO (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think "have to be" is a bit strong, however "highly recommended" would be good if you can squeeze it in there somehow 8?) I know I learnt a lot about reviewing (and authoring!) from the comments I got from other reviewers about parts I've (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) It was pointed out to me, offline, that one key question not addressed in the FAQ is this: "Do you have to be a part author to be a part reviewer?" What do you all think about this? Yes? No? Have No Idea? LMK. Steve (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
|
(...) I don't think you're alone in feeling this way, Ryan. So, are you ready to sign up as a reviewer now? :) (...) Hmm. I could add a link to my .sig file... Seriously, if anyone has more info for the Parts Tracker FAQ, I'd be happy to add it to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Requesting another plug-in for LDDesignPad
|
|
(...) Actually, you could try this. First scale your primitives by 0.64. Then scale the parts by 0.64. Then fix the primitives inside the parts by rescaling the type 1 lines that pull in the primitives by 1.5625. I just tried this with ldglite on (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
