Subject:
|
Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:24:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1883 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) writes:
> > Terry: Is that correct? Is there not currently a rule against submitting
> > parts that have not been painstakingly measured from a real element?
>
> No, there is no strict rule. More of a common sense rule. But apparantly,
> common sense is not always sufficient.
>
> How could I possible enforce such a rule? And there would always be valid
> exceptions to it (see John VanZ's post)
I'm not sure how a rule like that could be strictly enforced, but you could
certainly put down a foot and declare from here on out that modeling pieces
blindly is verboten because they (a) cannot possibly be 100% correct except in
extremely lucky circumstances, (b) waste your time because you have to reject
them due to qualitative problems, (c) demean the LDraw effort, and further (d)
insult James (rest his soul) who held the highest of standards.
You could also ask for a pledge from each parts author that they promise never
ever to model an element blindly without noting it as such. A blindly-modeled
part should never be exposed to an LDraw user without the user's knowledge
that the utmost care was not taken.
Perhaps a new field named something like "Source" would help, with values like
"From an actual element" or "From a photo."
In the Fibblesnork LEGO Guide I tracked the source of every piece count for
the sets, whether it came from a box or was hand-counted or came from a S@H
catalog and who relayed the information.
> Sending parts to an author could work. I would have no qualms about sending
> pieces to many of the authors. Because I know and trust them, and I have
> confidence in their ability to accurately model a piece.
> But before sending any pieces to Jonathan, I would want him to work on his
> authoring skills. He has not shown me that his skill level is up to snuff.
I haven't actually looked closely at the elements yet, but based on what I've
heard here in the ensuing discussion, I agree with that completely.
Jonathan, I you should check your attitude if you think it's "cool" to model
parts without having them in front of you to measure and inspect with extreme
care. I would say, strike *one* and you're out -- if you get *any* detail of
the element wrong, you should go buy real elements and stop wasting Terry's
time. It bothers me to hear you causing Terry distress over things like the
magnifying glass -- you shouldn't have attempted it unless you were going to
get it right.
Shooting from the hip isn't cool unless you hit the target perfectly. Then,
only then, is it cool, IMO.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
| I'm quite happy to have pieces be mockups. If it is recognizable, it does the job of recording and communicating the model. IMO, perfection an LDRAW do not mix. Two decimal points? Rounding errors? 16 colors with _dithering_? Type 5 lines that may (...) (25 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Modeling without the real element -- bad
|
| (...) No, there is no strict rule. More of a common sense rule. But apparantly, common sense is not always sufficient. How could I possible enforce such a rule? And there would always be valid exceptions to it (see John VanZ's post) (...) Sending (...) (25 years ago, 26-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
|
|
|
|
