Standards for stud groups


Re: Standards for stud groups
#8
Having been asleep for far too long, I guess it's a bit too late for me to add my opinions right now. I think there's about thirty certified stug primitives already in the PT. Unfortunately, because I find a lot of them totally unnecessary.

Stud orientation is not the least interesting to me, but I know that a lot of LDraw users produce photo-realistic renderings, so for them, it is essential. So therefor I say yes to both 1xX and Xx1 versions.

But the question is: when is it justified to create yet another "primitive"?
In other words: How many lines does it at least have to represent to be beneficial?

Two stud primitives? Like the case of stug2-1x2.dat and stug2-2x1.dat? No way!
Three stud primitives? Hmm, well maybe - if it's very commonly needed, like 3x1 and 1x3.
Two stugs? Well, it depends. I think 1x6 and 6x1 can be useful, even though they only replace two 3x1 groups. But generally I would say no. For example, with 5x1 and 6x1, there no need at all for 11x1 IMO.

3x1, 4x1, 5x1, 6x1? Ok.
7x1, 8x1, 9x1, 10x1, and 11x1? No, I don't think so. They replace only two smaller stugs. We should draw a line somewhere, shouldn't we?
12x1? Well, only if there's a really large demand for it, maybe. But we already do have 6x1...

I know I should have said this earlier, but better late than never, maybe. Smile

/Tore
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
Standards for stud groups - by Tim Gould - 2011-11-15, 10:08
Re: Standards for stud groups - by Tim Gould - 2011-11-15, 22:17
Re: Standards for stud groups - by Tore Eriksson - 2011-11-23, 20:20
Re: Standards for stud groups - by Chris Dee - 2011-11-23, 20:53
why stugs exist / scaling - by Steffen - 2011-12-09, 23:17
Re: why stugs exist / scaling - by Steffen - 2011-12-09, 23:58

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)