Subject:
|
Re: DAT voting page up
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:58:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2676 times
|
| |
|
|
Since I am not an LDraw part developer (although I did try my hand at one
part), I will add my $0.02 to the fracas and be done with it. This outlook
is based upon my knowledge of engineering documentation systems in the real
world. With that said, my opinion is as follows:
Steve Bliss writes:
> It's not an update. It's an A/B version thing--Tile 1x1 Old Style, Tile
> 1x1 New Style.
I agree. In the real world parts change all of the time. It is better to have
a new part number for the new piece, if both pieces are currently in use.
That avoids having to track what revision is used where. However, since we
only have one number to work with, I would suggest using 3070a for the
old part (without finger lip) and 3070b for the new part (with finger lip).
Part 3062 is a perfect example of this method put to practical use.
This may get confusing where sub-parts of an assembly are already numbered
as such. Take for example Hinge Plate 3149. It's sub-parts are broken up
into 3149a, 3149b, and 3149c. I would suggest discontinuing this practice.
Would LDraw accept a part number such as 3149-1, 3149-2, etc? If so, I would
recommend that this method be used. That creates a distinction between
a sub-part and a part revision. It would also allow for 3149-1a if that part
were to ever be changed by TLG.
As for colors, I do not believe that it is productive to assign individual
part numbers for different colored parts (specifically the dingy in
question). My reasoning behind this, is that the LDraw operator has control
over the color when it is inserted. If he wanted a purple dingy, he could
have one. LDraw is more about fit, form and function and less about spectral
appearance which brings me to another topic being discussed here.
I feel that all parts created for LDraw should resemble their physical
counterpart as close as is reasonably possible. That means that they
should be created with all visible surfaces in their proper places. The part
author should not settle for "close enough, needs work." How is the part
author to know what creative way the part my be used in real life? If
shortcuts are taken, the part may not be able to be used in the same
orientation in LDraw. TLG has tolerances for the amount of dimensional
variance allowed before a part is rejected. I see no reason why the L-Cad
listserv shouldn't adopt at least a 1 LDU tolerance on all parts submitted.
As I stated earlier, this is my opinion. I believe that I will sign off now,
since I will need a publisher if this post gets any longer.
Duane
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: DAT voting page up
|
| (...) ^^^ I avoided using this word in my posts on the subject for fear I would spell it just like this, which of course is another word for dirty :-) Good points in your post, though. -John Van (26 years ago, 26-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: DAT voting page up
|
| (...) In this case, all the tile elements probably have new, 5-digit part numbers. It would be appropriate to use these numbers for new versions of the tile. In general, if TLG modifies a part but retains the original part number, appending a letter (...) (26 years ago, 1-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
97 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
|
|
|
|
