 | | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) [snip] This is great info/advice! Can this be included in a "reviewer FAQ"? (Is there one already?) (...) Yes, yes! Please remember that, even after a part has been certified & included in the official parts library *it can still be (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers...
|
|
(...) Ignoring the new parts which will be added in the meantime 8?) ROSCO (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers...
|
|
Good statistics, just one note... (...) You should really comb through the lists, and count how many files we've released multiple times in the last 4 updates. We wouldn't want to count duplicates in the averages... Steve (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Numbers...
|
|
Here's the current numbers from the Parts Tracker..... From the "Parts List" page: Parts (443 files) Subparts (114 files) Primitives (42 files) 48-Segment Primitives (20 files) (Total: 619) From the "Certification List" page: 20 certified files. 48 (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) My hints to new and more part reviewers Because it is claimed that reviewers are highly qualified people, some potential volunteers may be intimidated. I was also at first. I am not a part author and even less a highly qualified people (in (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | [Parts Tracker] Reviewing Parts FAQ
|
|
I took the current information available from the Parts Tracker, and the recent discussions in this group, and put together a quick FAQ page about reviewing parts. Please let me know what you think! I will be happy to receive any and all Edits, (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
|
(...) I forgot complication #3: 3. If the file you are reviewing has an embedded transparent area, you won't be able to check the BFC'ness of any surface viewed *through* the transparent area. You can fall back on viewing the part with mytest6 (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think no. If it were so, it would stifle input from those who want to help, but have never (yet?) authored a part. I understand that one who is a parts author would possibly have a better eye for detail in reviewing; it would merely need to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes: [snipped ludicrously useful tip for BFC checking] (...) Uh, increase the standard day to 48 hours??????? 8?) ROSCO (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think "have to be" is a bit strong, however "highly recommended" would be good if you can squeeze it in there somehow 8?) I know I learnt a lot about reviewing (and authoring!) from the comments I got from other reviewers about parts I've (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
