LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Full Version: Standards for stud groups
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Firstly, hello and congratulations to the new LSC.

Secondly... stud groups. I'd really appreciate some clarity.

Personally I think any basic plate should potentially have an equivalent stud group and certainly the small ones. Mike and Steffen disagree.

Luckily we have a team of people who can resolve this issue officially once and for all. I'm happy to go with whatever is decided but I'd like to see a decision. In the grand scheme of things it's a minor issue but it's one that Mike felt strongly enough about to place a hold and I felt strongly enough about to disagree with the hold.

And a note on the solution should be added to the primitives reference page. Which I shall do when it happens.

Cheers,

Tim
So, from what I've read around here, in various files, and on the parts tracker, there seems to be two prevailing theories on the creation and usage of subparts. (Note, when I use the term "subpart", I'm using it generally to refer to any part referenced by another, whether they be in the S, P, or 48 files, and not the specific subpart file S.) The first theory is: subpart everything, it makes the files look cleaner. The second is: subpart only that which may be useful elsewhere, as this makes things more efficient.

Now, at least to me, your question frames this issue quite cleanly: Do we really NEED to make a subpart for all possible stud groups? Why should/would we want to? Would it be better to have fewer subparts? Which option is more optimal, in terms of both memory usage and loading speeds? Does having more subparts make part creation easier or harder?

I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do think it's important that they're discussed.

Final thought: Has anybody actually bothered to run tests on this to see what actual "cost" is for using subparts vs inlining? I hear tales "recursion indefinate" and from a programmer's point of view of making an optimally performing program, I shudder. I remember taking an optimization class back in college and while I don't remember much of it, I do remember that recursion=bad.
Personally, I never really saw a good reason for stud groups. It just seems to add another layer of hierarchy that's not really needed. Also, if you want to be really picky, they're not really primitives. That said, the box is now open so griping about it is kind of pointless...
I haven't kept up with stud groups, so I just want to make sure I understand something. I believe that the reason for having 1xX and Xx1 stud groups is so that the stud logo will have the correct orientation. Is this correct? (I know this isn't involved in the question, but if the LSC does standardize something, it will need to be explicitly given as the reason for having both to avoid possible confusion.)

Also, related to the above, is there an official policy on stud logo orientation? Is it reason for a hold, or just a complaint inside a novote? Is this documented anywhere? (I think it needs to be documented, either way.)
Some more discussion

http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/primitives/?n=310 is the earliest discussion I could easily find. And the debate lasted over 2 years Smile

Steffen lays out some compelling argument here http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cg...ug-2x3.dat


Travis Cobbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I haven't kept up with stud groups, so I just want
> to make sure I understand something. I believe
> that the reason for having 1xX and Xx1 stud
> groups is so that the stud logo will have the
> correct orientation. Is this correct? (I know
> this isn't involved in the question, but if the
> LSC does standardize something, it will need to be
> explicitly given as the reason for having both to
> avoid possible confusion.)

From what I could find on LUGNET (link) yes this is the reason. Interestingly this is not spelled out on the primitive references page, and nor are the logos pictured.

> Also, related to the above, is there an official
> policy on stud logo orientation? Is it reason for
> a hold, or just a complaint inside a novote? Is
> this documented anywhere? (I think it needs to be
> documented, either way.)

I'd like to see a clear policy on that too.

Tim
I have a few thoughts:
  • I'm not convinced the part size is really that big of a problem. I think it's a problem we invented as opposed to observed.
  • Stud logos. This has been argued before. I'm still of the position that logos are not part of the spec and therefore why should we care about them when certifying parts. If we really care that much about them to create extra "primitives" (i.e. 1 x X and X x 1) then we should codify it.
Though I agree with Mike and Steffen on this, I do not think that the LSC should rule over it. In my opinion it should be handled by the PT admin. Its his choice how many STUGs he wants to show up on the Primitive Reference page. If a rule is needed we should add something to the LDraw.org File Format Restrictions for the Official Library on stud orientation in general.

w.
Having been asleep for far too long, I guess it's a bit too late for me to add my opinions right now. I think there's about thirty certified stug primitives already in the PT. Unfortunately, because I find a lot of them totally unnecessary.

Stud orientation is not the least interesting to me, but I know that a lot of LDraw users produce photo-realistic renderings, so for them, it is essential. So therefor I say yes to both 1xX and Xx1 versions.

But the question is: when is it justified to create yet another "primitive"?
In other words: How many lines does it at least have to represent to be beneficial?

Two stud primitives? Like the case of stug2-1x2.dat and stug2-2x1.dat? No way!
Three stud primitives? Hmm, well maybe - if it's very commonly needed, like 3x1 and 1x3.
Two stugs? Well, it depends. I think 1x6 and 6x1 can be useful, even though they only replace two 3x1 groups. But generally I would say no. For example, with 5x1 and 6x1, there no need at all for 11x1 IMO.

3x1, 4x1, 5x1, 6x1? Ok.
7x1, 8x1, 9x1, 10x1, and 11x1? No, I don't think so. They replace only two smaller stugs. We should draw a line somewhere, shouldn't we?
12x1? Well, only if there's a really large demand for it, maybe. But we already do have 6x1...

I know I should have said this earlier, but better late than never, maybe. Smile

/Tore
Just because these are on the Parts Tracker and Certified doesn't mean they'll ever get released. I still follow the guidance of previous Parts Library Admins in not releasing primitives until there is a part/subpart that uses them.

Chris
Chris Dee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just because these are on the Parts Tracker and
> Certified doesn't mean they'll ever get released.
> I still follow the guidance of previous Parts
> Library Admins in not releasing primitives until
> there is a part/subpart that uses them.
>
> Chris

Ok, but do you think I would make myself very impopular if I voted hold on the 2 stud stugs now? If it's even possible, that is.

/Tore
Pages: 1 2 3