LDraw.org Discussion Forums
Perfect vs. Available Parts - Printable Version

+- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org)
+-- Forum: Models and Parts (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-18.html)
+--- Forum: Parts Authoring (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-19.html)
+--- Thread: Perfect vs. Available Parts (/thread-11608.html)

Pages: 1 2 3


Re: Perfect vs. Available Parts - Magnus Forsberg - 2014-01-04

By all means, then let's slap a Needs Work on all the unfinnished parts and clean out the PT.

No, seriously, let's work with the files we have, so that they don't need to come back.
Yes, better tools and development of our standards will perhaps force them back to the PT,
but unfinnished designs should not be certified.


Re: Perfect vs. Available Parts - Philippe Hurbain - 2014-01-04

A part that is geometrically correct and looks good... is good!


Re: Perfect vs. Available Parts - Michael Heidemann - 2014-01-04

Any useful comment from your side ?


Re: Perfect vs. Available Parts - Michael Heidemann - 2014-01-04

Please do not go this way.

For example:
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/6058.dat

This file is surely used in some models out there. It does it's job.
For sure I would _not_ have certified that in this condition, but it works for years.

Now, as we have it again on the PT we should release it after _all_ issues are solved.

Please think about this for a while. (If I want to go to a far away city, i do not wait for a Bentley, I use the car that can go that distance).


Re: Perfect vs. Available Parts - Tim Gould - 2014-01-04

@Michael Horvath> If you want a post of yours deleted, please do not mark it as spam. That's abuse of the spam reporting system.

Also, we rarely delete posts without very good reason. But if you really feel something should be gone, make a post titled "please delete my post above" (or words to that effect) and give a reason.

Tim


See http://forums.ldraw.org/showthread.php?tid=11654&pid=11654#pid11654


Re: Perfect vs. Available Parts - Tim Gould - 2014-01-04

This has been my feeling for a long time. I think we've got closer to it. I see parts going through that used to be held for minor mistakes.

Tim


Re: Perfect vs. Available Parts - Tim Gould - 2014-01-04

Hi Magnus,

The basic rule of thumb for coding and similar activities states that you get 90% of the way to perfection in 50% of the time. Certinaly this applies to part authoring too. So we can have two 90% parts in the same time it takes to make one 100% part.

By way of extreme example, if we really wanted the library to be perfect we would have to go through every single technic brick (and many other parts) and move the connection hole one LDU higher. Because there are some parts that simply cannot be made perfect while having the hole in the wrong place e.g. 98286. This is a massive waste of time that could be spent making new parts.

And I see you yourself have even worked around the problem in 53533. Which suggests that even a strong desire for perfection can be tempered in the face of excess time-wasting Smile

Tim


Re: Perfect vs. Available Parts - Michael Horvath - 2014-01-05

Which Michael?


Re: Perfect vs. Available Parts - Michael Horvath - 2014-01-05

I prefer things the way they are now. Yes it's frustrating when a part you really want to use is not certified. But in those cases you can create an MPD or inlined part to distribute with your work.


Re: Perfect vs. Available Parts - Tim Gould - 2014-01-05

You. If both Michael's reported spam I'd be starting a new thread Wink

Tim