RE: Description of 49308.dat and its sister parts
2022-02-12, 11:23 (This post was last modified: 2022-02-12, 11:28 by Magnus Forsberg.)
2022-02-12, 11:23 (This post was last modified: 2022-02-12, 11:28 by Magnus Forsberg.)
I see no reason to have a stud description on parts with no known variants.
And we already have numerous examples of printed parts without a "complete" part description, but instead describing only the pattern.
Like heads (3626, stud type), many tiles (stud type and/or groove/no groove) , r2 droid body parts (stud type and axlehole/no axlehole), and more.
Adding a very long description of a pattern to a very long description of the part is never a good practice.
I have always thought that standardized descriptions are good, but not if the distinctive information ends up somewhere at the end of the description.
I don't think it is needed to edit/recycle all the printed parts if the design of the base part is changed.
And we already have numerous examples of printed parts without a "complete" part description, but instead describing only the pattern.
Like heads (3626, stud type), many tiles (stud type and/or groove/no groove) , r2 droid body parts (stud type and axlehole/no axlehole), and more.
Adding a very long description of a pattern to a very long description of the part is never a good practice.
I have always thought that standardized descriptions are good, but not if the distinctive information ends up somewhere at the end of the description.
I don't think it is needed to edit/recycle all the printed parts if the design of the base part is changed.