(Yesterday, 1:02)Orion Pobursky Wrote: The draft says this:
I think this is just fine. If we want stronger wording, the last line can change to this:
In my view, the description is accurate, but given my limited experience, I cannot say whether this might cause problems during implementation.
In Willy’s example above, the exception would apply, as the triangle is attached to a primitive and the contact points are determined by the primitive.
However, if, for example, a pattern is created for a minifigure head without using primitives, I can create it in 2D with two or at most three decimal places. But if I then rotate the individual rectangles of the pattern according to the angles of the individual head surfaces, the limit of three decimal places may be exceeded. If reduced to three decimal places, a point could shift out of the plane. To avoid this, I would have to provide a justification for using more than three decimal places and hope that this justification is accepted by the reviewers.
In another post, I had asked about the possibility of creating a new primitive. I wanted a 1/16th of a circular segment, but one that ranges from 22.5° to 45°. Here, it was suggested that I rotate a 1/16th circular segment by 45° and then mirror it along the Z-axis. Rotating it by 45° would then require a resolution of more than five decimal places. That would again be an exceptional case and would probably require justification and approval.
I don’t know whether the viewers impose a limit on the number of decimal places, or what value makes sense under which conditions.
Regards,
Manfred