2454 b varient

[Orion Pobursky]

Have we worked on the 'b' varient to 2454?
https://rebrickable.com/parts/2454b/bric...ic-ridges/

[Jaco van der Molen]

Have we worked on the 'b' varient to 2454?
https://rebrickable.com/parts/2454b/bric...ic-ridges/

I can see the difference between inner ridges, but why bother? I know we want the parts to be precise, but since this is inner working and you don't use this one transparent we can make an alias for b from a?

[Magnus Forsberg]

I can see the difference between inner ridges, but why bother?

There's a big difference in function I think we should consider. The a-variant can't take a stud in the centre position, only left or right.
The b-variant can. And also the hollow studs on the top have a bottom. I think it should be made.

And the b-variant, with these "house"-like ridges are becomming more and more common. Look at 39266 and 49311.
And the new jumper, and 1x3 double jumper.

[Vincent Messenet]

There's a big difference in function I think we should consider. The a-variant can't take a stud in the centre position, only left or right.
The b-variant can. And also the hollow studs on the top have a bottom. I think it should be made.

And the b-variant, with these "house"-like ridges are becomming more and more common. Look at 39266 and 49311.
And the new jumper, and 1x3 double jumper.

I agree with Magnus, the fact that the b variant can take a stud in the center justify to have a different design instead of an alias.
As I wanted to practice, I worked on both variants. I'm sure there is room for improvement so let me know.

[Vincent Messenet]

I finally updated my files to the PT so they can be "officially" reviewed.

I think the already official 2454.dat and 2454s01.dat should be obsoleted. However, I'm wondering what to do with all patterned https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi...escription and stickered https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi...escription files. Difficult to know if they should be updated to use a or b version.

Any idea?

[Vincent Messenet]

I noticed Magnus reviewed and held 3 of the files I submitted:
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c...454s02.dat
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/s/2454as01.dat
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/s/2454bs01.dat

However, apart from the status which changed nothing appears in the "File reviews and updates" section of these pages...
Could it be a side effect of the technical issue that occurred during the weekend?

@Magnus, could you please let me know here what the problem is with these files?

Thanks!

[Magnus Forsberg]

@Magnus, could you please let me know here what the problem is with these files?

Thanks!

Yes, It looks like the PT "ate my homework". I have to recall my review from my memory.

Bricklink state that there's three versions of 2454. With or without a hollow stud blocker, and a third version is now in production with regular hollow studs.
Why did you choose a and b?
IMO it should be a, b and c, but OTOH I can't find any images of the version without a blocker. Does it even excist?

The new version have a logo on the inside of the hollow stud, so the s02 subfile can't include a stud primitive.

The stud blocker doesn't work well in hi-res mode. It also has unvisible surfaces, hidden on the inside.
You could use 4 x 3-16ndis around the bottom surface, and 2 x 1-8chrd on the top surface, instead.

The ridges are all too small and misplaced. The older version have ridges that block a center stud, but the new version allow a center stud.
These ridges should all touch the 2, or 3, stud configuration. There is no play between the ridges and the studs.

I don't see the point of eliminating T-junctions on the inside top surface.
I don't understand why you want to "plug the hole" with a disc primitive, in the new version, when a single big quad will do.
Remember, you should reduce the number of triangles in your files.

Lots of duplicated surfaces in -as01.
Missing edges in -bs01, along the ridges and inside the studs.

Did you inform Admin about the old file? It should become a Move to-file.

[Vincent Messenet]

IMO it should be a, b and c, but OTOH I can't find any images of the version without a blocker. Does it even excist?
[...]
Did you inform Admin about the old file? It should become a Move to-file.

I actually did not find evidence showing that the current official version really exists and that's why I produced a and b only.
Then I thought we could have the current 2454 obsoleted.

I will check in detail the rest of your feedback and go back to work on this.