Subject:
|
Re: "Needs Work"- Needs Work
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:47:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
711 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Manfred Moolhuysen writes:
> I would like to bring under your attention that in the past year some "Needs
> Work" parts actualy have been fixed by authors other than original ones. And
> recently myself and other people did review some parts that didn't have the
> "Needs Work"-tag on them, but definitly deserved to wear one in the state
> we've found them in. Besides this there where several fixes for errors
> reported by L3P.
I've been working on another one. The particular part I've been looking at
was released in mid-1998, and it seems apparent that the tools available at
the time had a big impact on the ability of the author to be thorough in
modeling. Once the part was viewed from an angle other than the default, the
problems were very apparent.
> There is someting else I like to say about maintaning part quality, (and I
> hope I do not hurt anyone's feelings doing so) I get the impression that in
> the past not all voters have judged parts carefully, and failed (or ignored)
> to see errors that are visable when you examine a part closly from other
> angles than the standard view. The strange thing was that all those parts
> simply made it through the votes. In fact, this made me giving up vote
> participation. It didn't seem to be worth all the trouble I've put into it.
You are absolutely right, the voting process rarely turns away files. That's
why I want to stop having part-votes, and implement a process of peer-review.
The real value in the part-votes comes in having people download the files,
review them carefully, and then publish whatever they find. I think the last
few updates have shown an increase in the overall quality of the part-files
being released, because people have been more vocal about providing feedback.
This may have started with Jonathan Wilson's part-files, because it made
people more aware of potential problems.
More contributing factors to parts quality:
- Newer/enhanced rendering/checking tools, like L3Lab and L3P. It's now
*easier* for authors to check their work, and sees where it's deficient.
- Generating tools. Marc Klein has been incredibly prolific with his STL2DAT
tool.
- Higher expectations. People are more aware of issues like winding and
decimal places.
- More experience. We are getting new part-authors, but as a community, we've
gone through a lot of parts, using different styles and approaches on them.
Our experienced authors are a valuable resource for guiding newer authors.
(Authors with experience in 3D modeling, outside of LCAD, have a big advantage
in producing parts.)
Whew. That's enough for now.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: "Needs Work"- Needs Work
|
| Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:G0sn7p.M08@lugnet.com... (...) This sounds like an interesting idea. I'd like to hear more. Adam (24 years ago, 14-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "Needs Work"- Needs Work
|
| I would like to bring under your attention that in the past year some "Needs Work" parts actualy have been fixed by authors other than original ones. And recently myself and other people did review some parts that didn't have the "Needs Work"-tag on (...) (24 years ago, 12-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
19 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
|
|
|
|
