LDraw.org Discussion Forums

This year there seems to be many "old" patterns printed on the new head, 3626c, and perhaps we need to decide how to treat them.
Must there be both a 3626b and a 3626c version of every re-released pattern?

Should all b-heads be renamed to "...with Blocked Stud"?
Should all c-heads be named "...with Hollow Stud"?
I don't think that's necessary.
The "c" in the partnumber, 3626cpXX.dat, tells me that it is a new head, with hollow stud.

Howard Lande has made a number of new heads, both as b- and c-heads.
3626bpb122, 3263bpb322, 3626bpb366, 3626bpb411, 3626bpb471, 3626bpb633, 3626bpb719
3626cpb122, 3263cpb322, 3626cpb366, 3626cpb411, 3626cpb471, 3626cpb633, 3626cpb719
(btw, they all need renumbering too)

Is that really necessary?

For what it's worth, my opinion is "no, it's not necessary"...

OK,
According to the reviews at 3626cp01 we need a version of all parts in the library.

How do we name them? Pattern first, or the stud?
Must all patterned parts end with the word "Pattern"?

My suggestion is this;
3626ap01, "Minifig Head with Standard Grin Pattern, Solid Stud"
3626bp01, "Minifig Head with Standard Grin Pattern, Blocked Stud"
3626cp01, "Minifig Head with Standard Grin Pattern, Hollow Stud"

I want all the parts with the same pattern grouped together, rather than having the same stud grouped together.

Or, I ask again, could we ditch the stud reference in the descriptions?
The space for a good description of the pattern is reduced, until more than 64 characters is allowed in the PartTracker.

Here are my two cents to this question:
I know several people using LDraw and most of them ask me sometimes, why there are some parts twice in the library. So I have to tell them: They have different molding numbers, so some parts have more than one entry there.
What I want to say. Many 'normal' users don't know about the different numbers and looking for the part description only.
That's why I prefere complete description for the heads, too.

/Max