Chris Wrote:This shortcut is useful as a template or helper, but is not something that is delivered as an assembly by LEGO. Maybe we need a qualifier on the LDRAW_ORG line:

Code:

0 !LDRAW_ORG [Unofficial]_Shortcut Helper

Steffen Wrote:I think everybody easily can see that.
I would find it overkill to introduce a special syntax element for that.
Think of the 12v train track shortcuts.
Of course they don't come in assembled form in the set box, but the shortcuts are extremely useful for train layout software like BlueBrick.

I think that the term "shortcut" already fully expresses what it is:
a convenient assembly of parts,
which helps/eases your building.

Note that we did not name the shortcuts

Code:

"!LDRAW_ORG Official_Assemblies_That_Come_This_way_by_TLG_in_a_Set"

Philo Wrote:I agree with Steffen, probably overkill to make this distinction.

arezey Wrote:I don't really like "Helper" because it seems to me as word cruft. It's like "thing" and "gizmo" and we don't use those either. I think we're currently using "Shortcut" for things that aren't really shortcuts. I'd rather see assemblies given their own proper part type instead of changing these which IMO are real shortcuts here.

MagFors Wrote:I agree with Chris and Santeri.
The misuse of the Shortcut is widespread.

Adding two parts in a shortcut, like a rim+tyre, is not a difficult assembly that should be handled in the library.
OTOH, there is a need to show what tyre and rim that fit together. But should we really create a bunch of shortcuts
everytime a new tyre is release by LEGO?
We have a number of, IMHO, usless shortcuts. Whats the point of having a compressed shock absorber in the library?
Why should we have shortcuts to easy the use of parts in a specific software? What is the difference between a
shortcut and a templete?

This assembly is a good one to have. The correct positioning of a rider on the scooter is not easy.

I think we need something like this:
Templete.
Shortcut.
Part assembly.
But how are they defined?

The Minifig Chain 6L is another good example.
One file is a formed chain to be used in as a shortcut, in a model, exactly 6L long.
The other is a straght chain extended to is maximum length, to be used in a build instruction.
I see no reason to shorten the 16/17 long chains, unless the chain is given a caternary shape.

Steffen Wrote:I again disagree. My thoughts:
- having a wheel+tyre assembly is most useful when doing animations.
- having to dig out the fitting tyre for a wheel is tedious when building. having such a shortcut available is nice.
- the library anyway is cluttered with moved-to's and things, I cannot see a reason to drop the shortcuts. they are useful and don't hurt. if you don't like them - don't use them

(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.

(2018-05-23, 18:36)Roland Melkert Wrote: Although some kind of formatted keyword could solve that problem.

(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

(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.