Subject:
|
Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:30:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1720 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:36:13 GMT, "jonathan wilson" <wilsonj@xoommail.com>
wrote:
> people are saying that some of the parts i have made are very complex.
> which ones are being refered to?
Some of the parts you sent me were representations of parts that are complex in
real life. Complex meaning that they have fine details that _should_ be
modeled.
> i deliberatly attempted simple parts like the magnifying glass, signal holder
> (i pulled the face from the metal detector) etc.
And even those "simple" parts are deficient. The magnifying glass is a good
example - I let that one slip by me. Looking at it from the front, it is
obvious that the part needs some _major_ work.
In a word, it is Unacceptable.
> i attempted the raised baseplate because i wanted to do ice station odyssey and
> others and i figured that there would be enough information on the instructions
> for sets that used the baseplate to interpolate the dimentions.
>
> the baseplate has the needs work tag for 2 reasons. the studs in the pit: some
> need to be removed but i do not know which ones. perhaps someone with the part
> can help?
>
> also the underside should be hollow.
>
> the part is currently in a usable state. if i wanted a mock-up i would not have
> spent a couple of hours making the part, i would have made a fake element from
> bricks,slopes etc.
I have no idea how accurate that baseplate is. At first glance, it doesn't
look too bad. But I have no example to reference it to, so how do I know it is
accurate?
I have stressed, repeatedly, that we need to enforce a level of quality in
parts production. It is a basic tenet for the parts authors.
I don't like being an arbiter of quality - I expect each part author to do that
themselves. But if you insist on making low-quality parts, I will have no
choice but to step in and make those decisions.
And frankly, I don't have the time or inclination to carefully review each and
every part you send me. I need to be able to trust that what you send me is of
an acceptable quality. If you continue to make and submit substandard parts I
will most likely tend to ignore your submissions.
It is up to you to ensure your parts are up to standards. By now, you should
at least have some idea that your parts aren't meeting that standard.
-- Terry K --
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
| people are saying that some of the parts i have made are very complex. which ones are being refered to? i deliberatly attempted simple parts like the magnifying glass, signal holder (i pulled the face from the metal detector) etc. i attempted the (...) (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
|
|
|
|
