Subject:
|
Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:29:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1781 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
>
> In fact -- and maybe I'm reading too much into this -- but I'm surprised • that
> there isn't a strict rule against submitting parts that have been modeled
> without having them in front of you. (Mock-ups noted as such being a valid
> exception, right?)
>
> Terry: Is that correct? Is there not currently a rule against submitting
> parts that have not been painstakingly measured from a real element?
>
> I think you should flat-out reject all parts submitted by people who • haven't
> measured the dimensions and haven't worked from an actual element. It's • just
> wrong to model them without the real element in front of you.
>
> If Jonathan has the energy to model parts, but not the will to purchase • them,
> then perhaps we can send Jonathan parts via snail mail. IMHO, no one • should
> be working blind.
>
> --Todd
There are some exceptions to an otherwise good rule. For example, the new
Technic Link which appears on the Y-wing. If I find out from someone how
many studs distance there is between the two peg-holes, I could make a
perfectly correct Ldraw part based on the current Technic Link. I could
also probably do the new 2X4 very low slope as long as someone would verify
that the studs underneath look similar to the 2X3 low slope.
But a raised baseplate? I'd want to have that one in my hand (well, on the
table while I type) in order to measure angles, lengths, see the underside,
etc. While mock-ups are fine for "unofficial use" until someone does the
real part, they don't belong in a vote. Of course they can be voted down,
but in order for Terry to take the time to get a part ready for voting, an
author should at least be able to say they tried to make an exact physical
representation.
IMNTBHO, "needs work" tags should be used only if the part is incomplete in
areas that are not likely to be noticed anyway, or if the author made their
very best effort on a very difficult part (compound curves, for example).
I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone from authoring parts, but
authors need to pursue the same standards as James used in his parts.
-John Van
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
| regarding my raised baselpate it is now (in the version i sent to terry last night) it is now mabie only 3-4ldu out maxumum ,if that, the fix adds a stud along the bottom of the piece next to the ramp (i discovered that there was one missing) also (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
| (...) Indeed. In fact -- and maybe I'm reading too much into this -- but I'm surprised that there isn't a strict rule against submitting parts that have been modeled without having them in front of you. (Mock-ups noted as such being a valid (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
42 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
|
|
|
|
