LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Full Version: Complete assemblies
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(2020-05-02, 15:38)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: [ -> ]...and for most usages you still have to inline the torsi to pose the minifig... I am not so keen adding the shortcuts (same things for legs, for minidolls or fabuland figures!)

So what your saying is that my cross ref project is preferable to torso assemblies and hip assemblies. This mean we should mandate some sort of external number (eg BrickLink, ReBrickable, BrickSet) for every pattern part going forward. Makes life significantly easier.
(2020-05-02, 15:50)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]This mean we should mandate some sort of external number (eg BrickLink, ReBrickable, BrickSet) for every pattern part going forward.

Mandate? Where then?
I'm beginning to feel that we shouldn't have started adding the Bricklink number in the dat-files. The number might be changed in an external source.
And for me, the review process is longer, when I have to check every Bricklink number in our files.
(2020-05-02, 16:48)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: [ -> ]The number might be changed in an external source.
You have a point...
Let's back up here since I sense that we mostly agree but disagree on a few specifics.

There are currently 2 options:

a) Put files for complete assemblies for all patterns into the Library

Pros:
- Easier to find patterns from set inventories
- Better sync with the rest of the part cataloging community

Cons:
- A large amount of files to add to the library

b) Put files for generic assemblies in the library but nothing pattern specific

Pros:
- Far less library overhead
- Easier to inline and change

Cons:
- Difficult to find a specific pattern especially for patterns with subtle variations
- Not the way other part cataloging site list parts

As this is a summary, I'll post my thoughts as a reply
I have 2 major concerns:
1.) We need some good way to cross reference our part number for a pattern with that of the other part cataloging sites. This makes a users life significantly easier as they can look up a set inventory (official or MOC) and easily be able to find the part in our library. Have you ever tried to find a specific minifig head in the library with nothing to go on but a picture? It's tough.

2.) For those parts that are separable but do not typically come separate, we should have a good way to correlated the patterned and plain parts needed to recreate the assembly. I asked Rebrickable if there were plans to have an inventory for the individual parts in a patterned torso assembly (torso/arms/hands) (or hips/legs assemblies) and was tolds that this would probably never happen. This spurred my work cross-reference file which I'm trying to make generic enough that programs other than my PBG generator can use it.

Both of these are solved by have all LEGO produced assemblies in the library. If this is not the route we want to take (and honestly, after a little bit of reflection, I'm not as strongly for it as I was) then here are my proposed solutions:

1. Is solved by embedding some sort of external identifier in the KEYWORDS. Right now that is typically the Bricklink number. The concern is, rightly, that this number may change. Heck, we've changed our number using MovedTo's lots. So my new proposal is that we embed at least one set number for every patterned part. This will at least allow a user to dial down to a specific set and from there figure out the pattern for the set inventory.

2. The solution is already in the works. Philo wants to push it out even further to encapsulate entire minifigs, minidolls, etc... which I'm fine with. I'd like to see official support for the cross-reference file. I'm working on a web interface to add/change entries. This could be easily modified to allow anyone to submit an entry or correction and have it approved/denied by a single person
I'm late to the party, but here is what I think:
  • Hips/Legs
    There are for more printed hips in the field than printed arms, so in my opinion to put complete assemblies of hips/legs into the library needs to be done, looking for them through the library might be extremely painful...
    Also you always have a left and a right leg, they most probably have the same patter number, but it is easier to have the complete part there.

  • Arms/Torsi
    As with the hips, I think it would most make sense if there is a pattern on the arms. So we should have those combos in, at least. Other assemblies, with single colour arms, would have kind of a "logical" relarion to the main body, respectively it is just the job of adding an arm and giving it a colour.
(2020-05-02, 16:48)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: [ -> ]Mandate? Where then?
I'm beginning to feel that we shouldn't have started adding the Bricklink number in the dat-files. The number might be changed in an external source.
And for me, the review process is longer, when I have to check every Bricklink number in our files.

The converse to this argument is that it took me about 15 minutes to search the entire official library for BrickLink numbers and generate almost 200 cross-references to ReBrickable. Compare that to the literal hours I’ve spent comparing patterns for the parts without a good way to cross reference and I’m only a couple of hundred parts in. I think at least one LEGO set number in the KEYWORDs is a good compromise.
(2020-05-02, 18:46)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Have you ever tried to find a specific minifig head in the library with nothing to go on but a picture? It's tough.

Sure. Most of our descriptions are in sync with BL. Text search or a search within a catergory finds them easily. The only problem with the search is ... ROLAND ... that the result shows also hidden parts.

w.
(2020-05-02, 18:27)Orion Pobursky Wrote: [ -> ]Let's back up here since I sense that we mostly agree but disagree on a few specifics.

There are currently 2 options:

a) Put files for complete assemblies for all patterns into the Library

Pros:
- Easier to find patterns from set inventories
- Better sync with the rest of the part cataloging community

Cons:
- A large amount of files to add to the library

b) Put files for generic assemblies in the library but nothing pattern specific

Pros:
- Far less library overhead
- Easier to inline and change

Cons:
- Difficult to find a specific pattern especially for patterns with subtle variations
- Not the way other part cataloging site list parts

As this is a summary, I'll post my thoughts as a reply

In general I am supportive of option a.

I agree that KEYWORDS should include at least a 'set xxxx' or a 'bricklink xxxx' for patterned parts. What chance that we can get BrickLink to tell us when they renumber, or leave a stub in their database for renumbered files. Better would be the actual LEGO designation, since this would (most liklely) never change. Do we have any intelligence as to whether BrickLink will align its numbering with that of its new owner?

I'd be happier making these assemblies 'fast-track eligible' if they were script-generated - like I did aliases and the (now defunct) physical colour parts on the Tools page. The generator tools would not need to be restricted to admin(s). I'd need to check how easy it would be to make the PT submit them pre-approved. We would need a naming convention that supports multiple versions of a given torso pattern to accommodate different colour arms and/or hands.
Now that most of the major players have chime in here's a summary:

1) Consensus is that we should not have complete assemblies (except generic assemblies) in the library unless we can automate inclusion, exclude them from full tracker review, and formalize the naming
2) For all future patterned parts a set number should be listed in the KEYWORDs. Bricklink/Brickset/Rebrickable number can be listed at the authors option.

Personal note: Point 2 seems to suggest a further need for an ALIAS meta (first suggested by Chris?)
Pages: 1 2 3