+- 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: Official files that needs BFC (/thread-8034.html)
Official files that needs BFC - Michael Heidemann - 2013-02-01
I have just scanned our current library (approx. 10% of it
)I have found some parts that needs to be shifted to use correct BFC.
Maybe there is someone out there who has the mood to do that.
Re: Official files that needs BFC - Max Martin Richter - 2013-02-02
As I have some free time the next days, I will give it a try...
Re: Official files that needs BFC - Michael Heidemann - 2013-02-02
Great!
Re: Official files that needs BFC - Max Martin Richter - 2013-02-02
I do some optimization on the parts as well. So don't be confused, if I'm not sooo fast ;-)
But nevertheless I finished the first baseplate just a few minutes ago.
Re: Official files that needs BFC - Michael Heidemann - 2013-02-02
I also just realize that there are many
!LDRAW_ORG Part
files that should get
!LDRAW_ORG Part Physical_Colour
For example 4109600.dat, 4211044.dat
Re: Official files that needs BFC - Chris Dee - 2013-02-02
I'm not sure where you are finding those files, but both of these in the official library _do_ have "Physical_Colour" on the !LDRAW_ORG line.
Re: Official files that needs BFC - Michael Heidemann - 2013-02-02
Oh, yes you are completely right. Sorry for confusing. Next time I'll have a deeper look into the item before I post.
Re: Official files that needs BFC - Jude Parrill - 2013-08-19
Alright, well I just finished up 2342.dat. Although, if I'd just BFC'd it and done nothing else before submitting it... I think I may have given MMR (and other reviewers) a heart attack. This was also a part that "Needed Work." Talk about an understatement! Missing surfaces, missing edges, and missing cond. lines. T-Junctions everywhere. The quads that comprised sidewalls were poorly rounded and stuck out through other surfaces. Didn't use an ndis for the holes, but did it manually... badly. Had scaled studs for the upper knobs. None of the actual studs were positioned correctly: the side ones stuck out slightly from the walls and the upper wasn't positioned correctly such that putting something on it would cause collisions with the joining part's underside. And it kicked my dog... OK, it didn't kick my dog, but everything else is true.
Anyways, all that's fixed now. Also, it was originally simply called "Space Control Panel" which I didn't think was the best description and left it in no-man's-land for MLCad sorting (filed under "S" for "a Sucky place to put parts"). Anyways, I decided to re-title it "Tile 1 x 2 with Control Panel" with "space" and "robot" as keywords. Since the part is essentially "A weird thing on top of a 1 x 2 Tile", I figured the best place to put it is with other tiles and that "Control Panel" is a bit more descriptive than "A Weird Thing on Top" (but only just).
I've sent it to Chris who should have it up shortly.
Note: This post is filled with sarcasm and humor, and shouldn't be taken as an insult to anyone or anything at any time.
Re: Official files that needs BFC - Magnus Forsberg - 2013-08-20
A perfect example of what happens if we let unfinished parts become certified.
Personally, I'll never be content myself, with anything other than a perfect design.
There are only two types of files; finished or unfinished....;-)
In the category "filed under "S" for "a Sucky place to put parts"" I find two more parts beginning with "Space..."
2516; "Space Chainsaw Body", Bricklink; "Minifig, Utensil Tool Chainsaw Body", Brickset/Lego; "Tool Holder"
3940; "Space Stand 2 x 2 x 2", Bricklink; "Support 2 x 2 x 2 Stand", Brickset/Lego; "Undercarriage 2X2X2"
Could someone come up with better descriptions for them too?
Re: Official files that needs BFC - Chris Dee - 2013-08-20
Magnus Forsberg Wrote:A perfect example of what happens if we let unfinished parts become certified.Please bear in mind that this part was released in 1997, before the existence of the Parts Tracker, with minimal formal peer review process and without the rendering tools that we now take for granted. That doesn't make it bad, merely acceptable to the self-imposed standards of that time.
Re: Official files that needs BFC - Magnus Forsberg - 2013-08-21
I fully understand that our standards and the ability to review files have changed over time.
I just wanted to point out that if someone doesn't finish it today, someone else has to do it tomorrow. Someone who could have made a new part, instead of finishing an old. I fear that many part authors today spend their time correcting old files.
Re: Official files that needs BFC - Jude Parrill - 2013-08-21
Magnus Forsberg Wrote:I fully understand that our standards and the ability to review files have changed over time.
I just wanted to point out that if someone doesn't finish it today, someone else has to do it tomorrow. Someone who could have made a new part, instead of finishing an old. I fear that many part authors today spend their time correcting old files.
That's basically all I've been doing. I generally go onto the PT and look for held parts which I think I'm capable of fixing, and then do so. I generally lean towards smaller parts since they typically take less time to fix, but there aren't a lot of them on the PT. It would be nice if we had some sort of "quality indicator" (other than just "needs work") to describe parts. However, just setting up and creating such a system would be time-consuming, and that's assuming you could get people to agree on things like what constitutes a "good" part and what constitutes a "very good" part and how they differ, which I think may not be all that easy.
I guess for now, the easiest thing to do will be to keep an up-to-date list of parts that "need work" and parts that "need BFC," so that authors like me looking to fix parts can quickly and easily find the parts most in need of updating.