Organizing the parts library

[Gerald Lasser]

Thanks for your input, it is always good to see a new part author's view.

Reusing dat files is an efficient way of constructing complex structures out of modular subunits while maintaining editability on all levels without redundancy. However, each additional subpart requires its own review and approval on the parts tracker before becoming eligible for inclusion into the library. The low number of part reviewers effectively limit the realistic number of subunits of a part, thus hindering adequate reuse of subunits in different bricks. Consequentially, subunits tend to be large and highly specialized, thus of little use in other parts.

We could indeed need more reviews, that is an eternal thing. People like to create things, reviewing is a necessary task but it is not that fun as authoring a part.

Using sub-parts is encouraged due to the exact reason you mention above, finding the required sub-parts is then another challenge, requiring quote some knowledge of the available parts, and scanning them for reusable sub-parts.

Additionally, I would prefer having access to box primitives where the origin is at the end of the box rather than the middle and understud primitives with the origin at the bottom end of the primitive rather than the top to simplify scaling and placement.

The primitive refernce gives a pretty good overview of how those boxes are constructed and where their origin is placed. As this is not consistent through them, I can understand that this is confusing. Changing them would mean to add a whole new set of prims with the origin at one side.

The studs generally have their origin at the same place, understuds need to be scaled reverse.

The above can be achieved in at least two approaches; 1. allowing subparts within a file and 2. by expanding the 'primitives' library with structures that are repeatedly constructed in part after part. Examples of the latter include boxjcyl, a halfway truncated stud8, and all-edge versions of some boxes.

Solution 1 would enable more consistent parts as modular intermediates can be constructed in a "for this part only" manner. Solution 2 would enable more broader reuse of modular subparts. Neither excluding the other.

1) is allowed an encouraged, I may miss your point, may be you can give an example
2) prims can always be added, they might not be there because there was not yet a need for them. If you think you got a useful one, add it.

I would also prefer more standardized naming of parts, consistent part orientation, regularized primitive sizes, and circular segments other than those starting from a 0 or 90 degree angle.

The naming of parts, ensuring consistency, proper/useful orientation etc, is part of the review process.

What do you mean with the circular segments starting at other angles? Do you have an example?

BR
Gerald