at the review of 15396c02.dat
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cg...396c02.dat
a discussion started about which shortcuts should be in our library and which not.
let's continue the discussion here
I copied the comments from that part's review to here, see below:
I wonder if we should have these Door + Frame assemblies
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptpatterns.cgi?c=u9370
in our library. This would be the first Door + Frame assemblies when I see correctly.
Up to now, we are only delivering the doors + frames separately.
This is a similar question to the Wheels + Tyre assemblies question.
But it is also a little different: finding the proper tyre for a wheel is more tedious than finding the proper door for a frame.
My personal opinion currently is:
- I would like to see the wheel+tyre assemblies official
- I also like the door+frame assemblies, but I understand if people don't want them
I kind of think that door+frame assemblies would be significantly more useful than tire+ wheel ones: tire generally share the same origin as the rim so they are extremely simple to assemble. Proper assemblies of door+frame is often much more tricky.
Actually I'd like to see shortcuts (in both cases) only if assembly is not obvious.
(2018-04-18, 6:48)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: [ -> ]I kind of think that door+frame assemblies would be significantly more useful than tire+ wheel ones: tire generally share the same origin as the rim so they are extremely simple to assemble. Proper assemblies of door+frame is often much more tricky.
Actually I'd like to see shortcuts (in both cases) only if assembly is not obvious.
Placing them isn't that hard indeed, but finding the matching pair is imho.
Although some kind of formatted keyword could solve that problem.
(2018-05-23, 18:36)Roland Melkert Wrote: [ -> ]Although some kind of formatted keyword could solve that problem.
I would find the presence of the simple wheel+tyre assemblies more helpful.
Doing that avoids all the hassle of
- having to define a new syntax
- adjust all the parsers
- make people understand how that is intended to work
Instead, just offering the simple wheel+tyre assmblies shows the possible combinations.
They really do not hurt.
The amount of possible combinations still is small compared to the overall amount of files.
For example, each time we do a renumbering with a MOVED-TO, we are creating small files.
From my perspective, still releasing the wheel+tyre assemblies officially is the way to go.
(2018-05-24, 0:06)Steffen Wrote: [ -> ] (2018-05-23, 18:36)Roland Melkert Wrote: [ -> ]Although some kind of formatted keyword could solve that problem.
I would find the presence of the simple wheel+tyre assemblies more helpful.
Doing that avoids all the hassle of
- having to define a new syntax
- adjust all the parsers
- make people understand how that is intended to work
It wouldn't need a new meta/syntax just a keyword which is present in both a tyre and any of its matching wheels.
(2018-05-24, 16:56)Roland Melkert Wrote: [ -> ] (2018-05-24, 0:06)Steffen Wrote: [ -> ]I would find the presence of the simple wheel+tyre assemblies more helpful.
Doing that avoids all the hassle of
- having to define a new syntax
- adjust all the parsers
- make people understand how that is intended to work
It wouldn't need a new meta/syntax just a keyword which is present in both a tyre and any of its matching wheels.
That is already present in all of the tyres and rims following the naming nomenclature.
The rim diameter is a common denominator.