RE: Introducing my LEGO Parts Guide, which is powered by images exported from LDraw.
2024-03-20, 13:24
2024-03-20, 13:24
First off, I think this is a great project, and while there are a lot of existing parts databases, I do think this fills a need for something more curated, presented in more of a narrative style—somewhere in between the purely statistical format of a BL or RB, and the long-form narrative of blogs like NewE.
I like how the information is categorized. I'm always pleasantly surprised as I drill down through the hierarchy and find new information with each step. This, however, can also be a drawback, as there is useful information that can't always be found unless I go down through all the levels.
One thing that does raise my eyebrow is some of the nomenclature you've decided on—particularly when it's at odds with the official terminology. One example would be in the clip category, where you describe the clips as vertical where TLG refers to them as horizontal, and vice versa. For another example, you've adopted a more rigid definition of "arch" and "bow", such that there are parts officially described as "bows" that don't match your definition.
Granted, the TLG descriptions are far from consistent, and I appreciate the need for a more unified nomenclature. (I'm not sure whether the term "blate" will catch on, but I respect the intention.)
I just wonder if finding new uses for already existing terms might not cause more confusion than it eliminates?
Otherwise, again, I truly appreciate the effort behind creating a "handcrafted" resource—there's certainly potential to grow tremendously, and while it will require ongoing effort, I do think it will fill a meaningful void!
I like how the information is categorized. I'm always pleasantly surprised as I drill down through the hierarchy and find new information with each step. This, however, can also be a drawback, as there is useful information that can't always be found unless I go down through all the levels.
One thing that does raise my eyebrow is some of the nomenclature you've decided on—particularly when it's at odds with the official terminology. One example would be in the clip category, where you describe the clips as vertical where TLG refers to them as horizontal, and vice versa. For another example, you've adopted a more rigid definition of "arch" and "bow", such that there are parts officially described as "bows" that don't match your definition.
Granted, the TLG descriptions are far from consistent, and I appreciate the need for a more unified nomenclature. (I'm not sure whether the term "blate" will catch on, but I respect the intention.)
I just wonder if finding new uses for already existing terms might not cause more confusion than it eliminates?Otherwise, again, I truly appreciate the effort behind creating a "handcrafted" resource—there's certainly potential to grow tremendously, and while it will require ongoing effort, I do think it will fill a meaningful void!