About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker


About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker
#1
Hello,
do the dimensions of the flattendd stickers and formed stickers have to be the same?

Until a few weeks ago this seemed like a useless question especially for cylindrical stickers, but lately this is no longer the case!

in the regulation to create the stickers there is talk of measuring them in LDU, but it is not required that they are exactly the dimensions indicated in the description.
And this has been interpreted as such by me, by the auditors and by the administrators until recently.

For a few weeks I have seen that they are trying to make the stickers the exact size shown in the description.
They say: the difference is minimal, a few hundredths of a millimeter, you can't see it.
Agreed, perhaps, but the opposite is also true.
It depends on how you deal with the problem of creating a new set of stickers and how you want to act on the ones already made.

When I have to create a new set of stickers I do this: I check which pieces should be attached, I check if there are already any stickers with the same shape (the stickers help in this), I make the flat version in various subparts and then the formed one is born accordingly. This means that reviewers have until 6 or12 subparts to check for a single sticker, but once the subparts are OK you know that the two mainparts are perfect and you don't have to check that they match. The explanation that has been given, however, is not to reduce the number of subparts.

With what is being done now, however, it becomes practically mandatory to look for a flattened stickerback that is compatible and the formed one. Then you have to create the flattened and formed version which are not exactly the same, so the game of subparts cannot be done. Drawing the sticker formed in this way will cause a lot of imperfections due to rounding that will require additional condlines. Or do you decide not to consider them a priori?

The way you are trying to edit the official stickers is somewhat questionable. Add slices of a few tenths of LDU to the ends of the flattened version, leaving the formed sticker unchanged, when it would be enough to change once and for all the stickerback formed and the two subparts at the ends to have everything consistent as it has been done so far.
It's a lot of work that we didn't feel the need for until a couple of weeks ago, but if you really want to do it, do it well.
Also because otherwise a new sticker how should I do it? If I do it as I have done so far, you will surely tell me that those slices are too thin and do not fit.

So I repeat the questions.
Do flattened and formed stickers have to be the same length?
For me: Yes
Do you need to round the stickerbacks to the nominal size of the description?
For me: No

Rather, if you think that the flattened version can have reusable dimensions from a flat only sticker with nominal size, then let's create a second version (a, b, c...) in which in the description we say what to use that stickerback for stickerback020x038a.

Massimo
Reply
RE: About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker
#2
(2025-12-16, 0:23)Massimo Maso Wrote: Do flattened and formed stickers have to be the same length?

Yes but exceptions can be made

(2025-12-16, 0:23)Massimo Maso Wrote: Do you need to round the stickerbacks to the nominal size of the description?

As an author, I would expect the actual sticker back dimensions to be exactly same as in the description. For normal parts, 3 digit precision is plenty with very few exceptions. So, to answer your question: yes, without exception.

I think the spec is clear on both these points but I'm willing to clarify if needed.
Reply
RE: About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker
#3
Question is "exactly"... imho, should simply be "the same" within (to be defined) a few %
- should sticker size be defined as the sum of chords of facetized surface, or the sized of the smooth arc?
- because of sticher thickness, length of top is different from length of bottom
...and human eye is unable to see a length difference of a few %!
Reply
RE: About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker
#4
I have another question about this:
Quote:Then you have to create the flattened and formed version which are not exactly the same,

What aren't they the same? If the curved top face is just the flat top face broken into parts for the curve they should match.
Reply
RE: About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker
#5
Maybe the question is: Is the method used by Philo allowed? 
As I understand it, the stretching (adding surface) and shrinking is an atempt to avoid another complete rework of the subfiles.

On the other hand, it must be possible to adapt the length of the end-sections, with the rounded corners, and then adjust the stickerback-file, and reuse the all the middle sections. If not, why isn't that possible?

As I've said before there is no rule stating that the formed sticker must match the 0.2 ldu from the edge-rule.
Reply
RE: About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker
#6
(2025-12-16, 17:18)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: As I've said before there is no rule stating that the formed sticker must match the 0.2 ldu from the edge-rule.

Also, the edge rule isn't a rule, it's a strong recommendation with justified exceptions.
Reply
RE: About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker
#7
The sticker back spec exists to standardized sticker creation to prevent near identical file proliferation and so that we're not arguing about tenths of an LDU. This thread shows that that mission has some distance to travel still.
Reply
RE: About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker
#8
(2025-12-16, 15:03)Orion Pobursky Wrote: I have another question about this:

What aren't they the same? If the curved top face is just the flat top face broken into parts for the curve they should match.

Philippe Hurbain
Question is "exactly"... imho, should simply be "the same" within (to be defined) a few %
- should sticker size be defined as the sum of chords of facetized surface, or the sized of the smooth arc?
- because of sticher thickness, length of top is different from length of bottom
...and human eye is unable to see a length difference of a few %!



With the official stickers released so far, the accuracy is guaranteed at 1/10000 LDU, on the decorated upper face.
The lower one is obviously shorter for folding and we don't care. What comes comes.

Even after we have standardized the length of the flattened stickerback, we should aim for this precision in order to be able to use, as I wrote before, the mounting of the flattened sticker formed by the rotation of subparts.

The length I mean is the sum of the length of the chords of facetized faces that make up the sticker. It is useless to aim for the ideal arc of circumference since no sticker is made in this way, not even if made with Texmap because you do not have the real cylindrical surface on which to project it.

With the solution currently proposed by Philippe, equality is no longer guaranteed, in fact only the length of the flattened version has been changed. And this is wrong.
Reply
RE: About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker
#9
(2025-12-16, 17:18)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: Maybe the question is: Is the method used by Philo allowed? 
As I understand it, the stretching (adding surface) and shrinking is an atempt to avoid another complete rework of the subfiles.

On the other hand, it must be possible to adapt the length of the end-sections, with the rounded corners, and then adjust the stickerback-file, and reuse the all the middle sections. If not, why isn't that possible?

As I've said before there is no rule stating that the formed sticker must match the 0.2 ldu from the edge-rule.

In my opinion, Philippe's solution is wrong, because it saves the work for the current official stickers, but complicates it for future ones and leaves the doubt about which size to take as a reference. It introduces useless thin faces and forces you to work with directly curved drawn stickers.

The work to be done is not a complete rework of the stickers.
This must be done:
1 - Draw the formed stickerback (e.g. 50950b01) so that the total length of the top face is identical to that of the stickerback to be used (difference less than 1/10000 LDU).
In my opinion, this must be done in any case to have consistency in the future. fair, you have to choose the flattened stickerback well so as not to have second thoughts in the future.

2a - For stickers made with subparts, modify the two extreme subparts to fit the new stickerback.
This gives once and for all the reference to be used in the future for those who want to use this way of creating stickers. In my opinion it is the right way to do it.

2b - For directly drawn curved formed stickers, you need to lengthen the ends as necessary to adapt them to the new stickerback.
This is the only part that Philippe's proposal could save, but at the cost of a questionable difference between flattened and formed stickers.

3 - Review and approval work on stickers.


Do you want to save yourself all this? Leave everything as it is, avoiding wanting to standardize to 0.2LDU the sizes of stickers that are not.
With stickerbacks you have already done a great job of standardization.
This part is an unnecessary burden of work.
Reply
RE: About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker
#10
(2025-12-16, 17:34)Orion Pobursky Wrote: The sticker back spec exists to standardized sticker creation to prevent near identical file proliferation and so that we're not arguing about tenths of an LDU. This thread shows that that mission has some distance to travel still.

Can you give me an example of near identical proliferation, because I haven't seen any. At the moment it doesn't seem to me that there are any official stickerbacks with overlapping sizes.
Reply
RE: About size of flattened sticker and formed sticker
#11
Welcome to the nitpickers department! Stickers do add a lot to a model, but they are just that - STICKERS -. Their exact geometry has no impact on the model... Imho formed stickers would be fine if they were a simple projection of the flat one, roughly in the direction of the average normal of the covered surface, top surface of the sticker translated by sticker thickness from bottom surface.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)