Subject:
|
Re: IMPORTANT - [ldraw.org] Official Model Repository
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:01:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1267 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney writes:
> I would have to say that to check these it would be highly reccommended
> that you have the actual set. but again, that depends on the size and
> complexity of the model. Obviously just instructions would do for a small
> car, but might not for say the launch and load seaport red Atlantic boat.
>
> It does depend on the model... a large but uncomplicated model could
> theoretically be checked by instructions in 3d view if the pieces are in
> instruction order.
I agree. Although having both the instructions and the set is infinitely
better than having neither the instructions nor the set, a set can probably
be *checked* having only the instructions and not the set, to an accuracy of
99% or higher (if one is careful).
The key thing here is that without having both the instructions and the set,
it's extremely difficult to prove that a given file is correct. But if there
is a glaring error in the data, it's certainly not a requirement to have the
set in order to spot an error. That is, there is value in checking a set
based only on having the instructions, as long as mistakes are found. If no
mistakes are found, then the value of checking it that was is reduced, since
it can't be proved correct based only on the instructions.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
94 Messages in This Thread:
 
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
