(continuing the quoting for completeness)
======================================================================
At Thu Dec 15 00:40:03 2011, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: novote
Comments:
I took from the mentioned thread that 383 only should be used
for lacquered plastic, whereas 494 would be "silverish" metal,
like the electric portions, but also metal axles.
ldconfig.ldr already provides different metal variations
(copper-like, chrome-like, gold-like, etc.pp.).
To me, it would be canonical to just add the different variations
in shinyness there. However, I already had trouble asking for
a magnet material there (see LDRAW forums). So I think that
asking for shinyness variations will again trigger a long discussion
which could take us again over 1 year. I really want to avoid that.
The current discussion status quo at the mentioned thread as
reached a consensus after long time, and there are many parts here
sitting on the PT waiting to just get outta here. I suggest
that we stick to the current compromise and let the parts go
at least for a first iteration from the PT. They can at any point
of time return, should the new discussion lead to a new compromise.
Just some thoughts to share.
======================================================================
At Thu Dec 15 00:40:03 2011, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: novote
Comments:
I took from the mentioned thread that 383 only should be used
for lacquered plastic, whereas 494 would be "silverish" metal,
like the electric portions, but also metal axles.
ldconfig.ldr already provides different metal variations
(copper-like, chrome-like, gold-like, etc.pp.).
To me, it would be canonical to just add the different variations
in shinyness there. However, I already had trouble asking for
a magnet material there (see LDRAW forums). So I think that
asking for shinyness variations will again trigger a long discussion
which could take us again over 1 year. I really want to avoid that.
The current discussion status quo at the mentioned thread as
reached a consensus after long time, and there are many parts here
sitting on the PT waiting to just get outta here. I suggest
that we stick to the current compromise and let the parts go
at least for a first iteration from the PT. They can at any point
of time return, should the new discussion lead to a new compromise.
Just some thoughts to share.