Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs


Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#1
Hej,
as there was upcoming discussion about our sticker specs in this thread: [http://forums.ldraw.org/showthread.php?t...16581]Link to the original discussion[/url], I feel, that this topic needs an own thread. So here it is.

Here is a short summary of the content:
a) There was a discussion about conditional lines (condlines) for formed Stickers.
Actually our spec is a bit unclear about handling condlines. They are not forbidden like edges are, but it is not allowed to use colour 24 in a sticker.
Magnus Forsberg requested to change the specs in a way that condlines could be used for bent/formed stickers. Furthermore he asked for handling condlines in general:
Magnus Forsberg Wrote:And how about divided cond-lines along a straight ridge? A minifig head, for instance.
Many short cond-lines gives a better rendering, than one long cond-line across many vertices.

b) The second discussion was about the origin of formed stickers.
Magnus Forsberg Wrote:Is it ok to place a sticker so that it is easy to place it on its brick, as long as it has (Formed) at the end of the description?
Even if it is a flat sticker?
Gerald Lasser Wrote:Does it make sense to have a formed sticker standalone in the library? If the sticker is formed (bent) then there is pretty much only one place where it can fit, on the part it was supposed to go. In my view a Part+ Formed Sticker combination would be enough.
Either this way or e.g. If it is a sticker is a stand-alone part, e.g. for the curved Wedge, it would make sense to have the sticker in its proper position when the co-ordinates of (the formed) sticker and the parts are the same.

If the sticker is just rotated, i.e. a sticker on a slope, the (relative) position for the part where it is supposed to go could be in the helpline. E.g. the Stickers for the 45° Slopes could then just be rotated 45° and positioned . In this case especially easy as all the center coordinates are full LDU values (0 10 -20)
Max Martin Richter Wrote:About the formed versions: I would like to see, if we can find an agreement, that the formed (bent not rotated) sticker is using the base coordinates of the brick, where it will be applied. (Or a moved centre coordinate if it is not applied on brick's centre.)

c) The last fact is how we handle stickers which needs to be formed. Create just the formed version or the flat and formed verision?
Magnus Forsberg Wrote:I have looked at many of complete sticker sets we have in the library.
Many of them have 1 or 2 formed stickers, but no flat version of that particular sticker.
Look at 4544258 for instance. We have all the sticker needed for that set, but no flat version of the formed f and g sticker. Why?
Must there allways be a flat versions of a formed stickers?
Gerald Lasser Wrote:I don't think the flat version shall be mandatory. Usually the flat version is where you (at least I) start from when designing a new one, so uploading it would not be too much of a hassle then. You then have the possibility to use it on other places as well.
Max Martin Richter Wrote:About the flat stickers: I would prefer, that we have a flat version of each sticker in our library. (Who tells, that nobody wants to use such a sticker on a MOC?)


Please feel free to discuss this further.

/Max
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#2
a) Agree for condlines on sticker top. I don't think Magnus suggestion is a good one since smoothing using condlines as trigger is somehow LDView specific (eg. LDCad doesn't need that). This also would pull out a can of worm: which color should have condlines?

b) I like Gerard suggestion (only part + sticker shortcut) to avoid clutter. But for optimum flexibility I would nonetheless suggest to keep separated formed sticker as a ~part, with origin and orientation matching part).

c) Suggest but not force flat stickers.
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#3
To refine it a bit more:


a-1: Cond-Lines An The Top Of Stickers

a-2: Cond-Lines At The Sides of Stickers (e.g. rounded corners, round stickers)
- I would say yes to this requirement, it looks like also POV-Ray makes use of them as Christophe wrote.
- It also makes the Sticker look better when primitve substitution is done,
- I also would vote for a mandatory use of the 4-4ering in rounded stickers to avoid gaps when prim-subst is done

b-1: Origin of Formed/Rotated Stickers:
- Having the origin of the sticker the same as the part where it is supposed to go is definitely a PRO for me.

b-2: Formed/Rotated Stickers Separately In The Library:
- having the sticker as a "~part" is a good idea.


c-1: Have Formed Stickers Also Present As Flat Versions:
- As a suggestion, yes.
- Also, as part of my personal workflow I will have a flat version in any case.
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#4
my opinion:

a: Cond-Lines for Stickers
Allowing cond-lines (be it at bent surfaces or round corners) will create an inconsistency with the current
spec that stickers have no edge lines at all. However, that inconsistency wouldn't hurt me much.
However, we should mention it in the spec and that it is by intention, not by accident.

a-1: Cond-Lines An The Top Of Stickers
To me, this only makes sense on formed stickers with a non-flat surface.
On a flat surface, these condlines make no sense.

a-2: Cond-Lines At The Sides of Stickers (e.g. rounded corners, round stickers)
If issue a is resolved, then I'm fine with this because of the advantages mentioned above.

b-1: Origin of Formed/Rotated Stickers:
Origin of the sticker = part where it is supposed to go = I fully agree

b-2: Formed/Rotated Stickers Separately In The Library:
sticker as a "~part" = I agree

c-1: Have Formed Stickers Also Present As Flat Versions:
IMHO we should leave it to the freedom of part authors whether they want to create a flat or bent version of a sticker.
We already have the same with parts. Nobody should be forced like "thanks, you now have created the bent sticker,
but we won't release it until you also create the flat version". That would be de-motivating. The same vice versa.
We should be happy and thankful for everybody who creates a part file for us. Be it a flat, or a bent sticker.
However, yes, in the optimal case both versions get created at the same time each time.
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#5
I agree with Steffen, with the addition to b-2: Formed/Rotated Stickers Separately In The Library it is recommended that a ....dnn part with the sticker applied should be submitted.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#6
yes, now it's up to me to agree with this again.
the ...dxx shortcuts - for a library user - play the same role as a patterned part.
from a builder's perspective, it is not important if something was printed onto a brick or sticked.
and, when you are a kid, you usually do not remove these stickers frequently, so they "feel" like patterned usually.
these are the reasons why I really like the ...dxx shortcuts in our library.
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#8
Bricks with a printed pattern have the word "Pattern" at the very end of the description.
How about the word "Sticker"? Where should it be?

We have at the PT this set of shortcuts
They all have a description like this:
"Brick X x Z [qualifier] with Sticker Z x X [qualifier], or likewise. The full description of the brick + full description of the sticker.

I scanned the current library and found this.
The word Sticker is placed differently in all the files we have, but most often at the end of the description. The dimension of the sticker is never mentioned in any of the shortcuts.

I would say that the dimension of the sticker is not needed in a shortcut description, and that the word Sticker should be placed at the end of it.
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#9
Magnus Forsberg Wrote:I would say that the dimension of the sticker is not needed in a shortcut description, and that the word Sticker should be placed at the end of it.

I agree. There would need to be a little re-work in the official library.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#14
Gerald Lasser Wrote:To refine it a bit more:
a-1: Cond-Lines An The Top Of Stickers

a-2: Cond-Lines At The Sides of Stickers (e.g. rounded corners, round stickers)
- I would say yes to this requirement, it looks like also POV-Ray makes use of them as Christophe wrote.
- It also makes the Sticker look better when primitve substitution is done,
- I also would vote for a mandatory use of the 4-4ering in rounded stickers to avoid gaps when prim-subst is done

I would say Yes and Yes. I'd say we should move away from the color 24 restriction, which from the beginning always aimed to prevent edges but not conds.

w.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#7
a
I never intended to ask for many short cond-lines.
I wanted to clarify how a cond-line along a fold-line should be made. One single line.
Philo's Edger2 can't create that line. How about LPE?

a-1
Yes. This was the main question. I want (a) cond-line on the top surface.

a-2
Yes. This would mean that we should add cond-lines, but not edge-lines, to the affected primitives 1-4cylc2.dat, 4-4cylc2.dat and 48/4-4cyls2.dat, but how about the cyli2-primitive. It would become obsolete.
Yes. The 4-4ering should be mandatory.

b-1
Yes. Formed stickers should have the same origin as the brick it is intended for.
But my question was about flat stickers. Is it accepted to have a flat sticker in a rotated position in a ....c01.dat file, if the word 'formed' is added, within brackets, to the description?
I would say No to that. A flat sticker should have its origin in the center of the pattern, at y=0.

b-2
No. I don't want hidden stickers. A search for "sticker" in LDFind will miss the ~Sticker, unless I add a * infront of the word.
I find it odd that LDCad use the word "sticker" for some of the printed parts.
And how do I find a minifig torso with sticker in LDCad?

c-1
The flat version of a formed sticker is wanted, but not mandatory.
If we decide to have the formed sticker hidden, with a ~, then the part+sticker shortcuts must be mandatory.
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#10
It seems like there is consensus here. Chris, would you like to start an LSB thread with the proposed changes? (I think you're the only one on the LSB who has commented on this thread before this post.)
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#11
What's the status of this Stickers specs changes?

I have a few Stickers on "hold" on the tracker due to Cyli primitives (with condlines) used for the Stickers Corners.
Is there a chance to have this kind of situation allowed, or should I create new Primitives without Condlines?
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#12
I'm not sure if this needs a LSB vote as it's a guideline and not really a format.

so, imho, it's up to Chris to ether adapt this or put it in the LSB forum for a vote.
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#13
Yes, sorry, this is in my court. I won't be able to work on it until after next week due to vacation.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#15
I also would like too add:

Do we need condlines on the back face of a formed sticker, and on it's edges?
I got the problem with 821472hc01 (have a look on the tracker).


Do the pattern codes letter restrictions (i, l, p, etc..) also apply on stickers code?
(If yes, there are official stickers not respecting it).
I got the problem with 821472i (have a look on the tracker).
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#16
May I ask for an update on the status of the specs changes proposed on that topic?
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#17
Yes, please.
I'm currently, deliberately not voting on formed stickers.
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#18
I'll try and find some time to get back on this. I am currently working on the next Parts Update, which I think should take priority use of my LDraw time.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#19
Following discussion in this topic and here... I am still not convinced about all this. I have the feeling that we should either have no lines at all (neither edge lines nor condlines) as it is specified today, or put the cursor all the way to the opposite, and allow condlines but also edge lines on all sticker sharp edges. Problem going with the latter proposal is that there will be incoherency between old stickers with no edges, and new ones with edges everywhere...
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#20
I would put edges everywhere, as a classic part.
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#21
What is the status on this? I have many stickers pending waiting for a decision.
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#22
Yes, we need to address this.

I used cylis with condlines, and added condlines on the formed stickers, in all of the stickers from Chris Mitillo, I fixed.
Have a look into 6074343ec01 and 6074343fc01
These are all now certified, and released, in the latest batch of parts.

I don't know how to interpret that. Is it a silent acceptance of cond-lines in stickers, or a mistake?
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#23
In my eyes it is surely a mistake.
The rules are given by our specs.

The specs are done for plain stickers and I can not see any reason why we should change that specs.

Formed stickers is a little different, because I can see the need of edgelines on curvatures.

So I would allow conditional lines and edgelines on formed stickers to get the visual information that I would lost if the formed sticker is applied. I hope someone can understand my bad english.
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#25
My mistake (but also that of the other reviewers).
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#24
I am working on this now. My top priority LDraw task now that 2005-02 is done.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#26
Any update Chris?
Reply
Re: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#27
Thanks for the reminder. A lot going on at present, but I'll see what I can do.

Chris
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#28
(2016-02-28, 18:11)Chris Dee Wrote: Thanks for the reminder. A lot going on at present, but I'll see what I can do.

Chris

Stil nothing on that topic?
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#29
(2016-04-11, 13:13)Damien Roux Wrote:
(2016-02-28, 18:11)Chris Dee Wrote: Thanks for the reminder. A lot going on at present, but I'll see what I can do.

Chris

Stil nothing on that topic?

No - sorry. I'll try to get to it this week.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#30
No news.

Why is this taking so long? I'd like to understand.
If I can help on somwthing to get it move forward, please let me know.
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#31
Here is my proposed re-wording of the official standard for sticker parts. I think I have incorporated the prevalent opinions.

  • The description of the part should begin with 'Sticker ...' followed by the dimensions if rectangular or round, or a description of the shape, and then a description of the sticker. The description should not end with ‘Pattern’. For example:
     Sticker  2.6 x  5.5 ...
     Sticker  3.1 x  3.1 Round ...
     Sticker Minifig Torso ...
     Sticker Minifig Shield Triangular ...
  • The creation of a flat version of the sticker is strongly encouraged. If the sticker is designed to be placed on the curved surface of a part or folded around the edge of a part a ‘formed’ version of the sticker part may be modelled.
  • The part number for the flat sticker part is the SKU from the edge of the sticker sheet with a single letter suffix. Each different sticker from a single sheet should have a unique suffix. Four digit numbers should be prefixed with two zeros to avoid clashes with parts (e.g. 004845a.dat, not 4845a.dat). Stickers from sheets with combo 5-digit/7-digit numbers should use the 7-digit number. If the sheet contains only a single sticker, or multiple copies of the same sticker, then use the SKU with an 'a' suffix. If the SKU is unknown then the part number is "sXXX" where "XXX" is a number assigned by the Parts Tracker admin.
  • The part number for a formed sticker part should be derived from the flat sticker part numbers with a c01 suffix. The part description should have a suffix of ‘(Formed)’.
  • The sticker should be modelled as a 0.25 LDU thin box (or whatever shape sticker is in), without any edge lines (type 2 lines) and coloured with main colour 16. The sticker should be oriented such that the top face is at -0.25 Y and parallel with the X-Z plane. The pattern with the hardcoded colours is on the top face.
  • The origin of a formed sticker part may match that of the part for which it is intended or be noted in a !HELP header line.
  • The sticker pattern is modelled in its true colours; they are not modifiable from the outside. All printed colours of the pattern must be matched, and the background (non-printed portion) of the pattern must use colour 16. Mimicking a colour by blending in the background colour of the part underneath using colour 16 is not allowed.
  • Conditional lines (type 5 lines), in colour 24, should be provided around curved edges and on the curved surface of formed sticker parts. Solid edges (type 2 lines) are also allowed for folds in formed sticker parts, but not around the edges of the sticker.
  • Combination sticker/part files may be submitted for the placement of flat stickers in official sets. It is recommended that a combination sticker/part file be provided for formed stickers. The part number of the sticker/part combination should be the part number with a dXX suffix, preferably using the same scheme of codes as for patterned parts. The !LDRAW_ORG line should identify the file as a ‘Shortcut’. The name for such parts should be ‘[part name] with [sticker description] Sticker’. The dimensions of the sticker from the sticker part name do not need to be repeated. For example:
     Brick 1 x 4 with Black "POLICE" and Red Line Sticker    

I don't really want to drag this out any longer with a lengthy discussion. Please comment if there are any absolute 'show-stoppers' - things you definitely cannot live with, or necessary detail that I have missed.

There will be some re-work of existing parts for conditional lines and naming, which I should be able to handle. Name changes will be fast-track approved, but I would like other changes to be reviewed as normal.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#32
I'm OK with it, but I would much prefer that both conditional edges (color 24) and real edges (color 16) be allowed on formed stickers. It seems to me based on the discussion in this thread that there wasn't a consensus on that point, but I personally feel that a formed sticker needs to be allowed to use both.
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#34
I agree that real edges should be allowed at folds of formed stickers - suggested new standard now edited to allow that.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#33
I'm with Travis.
We should allow line type 2 one formed stickers as well, if the top/bottom surface will get hard shaped edges, when the sticker is applied. For example the stickers in the shortcut 2924ad01.dat should get the edge lines, where the are folded.

/Max
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#35
Agreed - suggested new standard now edited to allow that.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#37
(2016-06-19, 15:27)Chris Dee Wrote: The part name should have a ‘~’ prefix (to hide it from regular part lists) and a suffix of ‘(Formed)’. The !LDRAW_ORG line should identify the file as a ‘Shortcut’.

Wouldn't this mean that a complete set of stickers could apear as incomplete, since the formed sticker is invisible?
And that a complete set of stickers would contain both parts and shortcuts?

I don't want to hide stickers a user might want to attach him/her-self, only because they are formed.

We have many examples of formed parts that are just Parts, not Shortcuts
Rubber belts, Technic tracks, Cloth, Minifig Skirts, Sails, etc. All of these are parts, not shortcuts.
 
A search in LDFind reveals only three parts that are Shortcuts
71396p01c01, Canvas Wagon Cover with Crossed Cutlasses Pattern (Formed)
56711gc01, Sticker  1.7 x  1.7 Joker Face Small (Formed)
71372c01, Technic Tread (Formed for 2 Spocket Wheels)
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#38
OK, formed stickers are parts, NOT shortcuts. Draft edited.

My personal preference is for flat versions to always be created and if formed versions are created then my preference is also for sticker+plus part combinations to always be created (but based on this discussion I have allowed some leeway in the spec).

I would argue that a set of stickers is not complete unless the flat version exists, since that is how it is provided.

Does anyone else have a strong opinion on whether formed stickers should be hidden?

Maybe this is another example of the need for an overhaul of the !LDRAW_ORG categories and move away from the artificial use of prefix characters in the description line.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#40
(2016-06-22, 6:15)Chris Dee Wrote: My personal preference is for flat versions to always be created and if formed versions are created then my preference is also for sticker+plus part combinations to always be created (but based on this discussion I have allowed some leeway in the spec).

I would argue that a set of stickers is not complete unless the flat version exists, since that is how it is provided.

Does anyone else have a strong opinion on whether formed stickers should be hidden?

First point: In my eyes we should have the flat version and eventually the formed version. Part+Sticker is just nice to have but not necessary in my eyes.

Second point: Yes, I'm with you.

Third point: They should not be hidden. I really like to build the full model with each individual part if possible.

/Max
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#41
Quote:First point: In my eyes we should have the flat version and eventually the formed version. Part+Sticker is just nice to have but not necessary in my eyes.
The only use I see for a flat version of formed stickers is for BOMs. But part+formed sticker shortcut could be used for BOMs, so I propose that if flat version of sticker is not provided then a part+formed sticker should be created. This is of course to prevent a too heavy burden on sticker part author for something of little use.

Note: IMHO, part+flat sticker for simple "orthogonal" parts like bricks or tiles are probably mostly useless and clutter library.


Quote:Second point: Yes, I'm with you.
Don't agree for the above reason.

Quote:Third point: They should not be hidden. I really like to build the full model with each individual part if possible.
No strong opinion. I'd rather favor hidden formed sticker if part+sticker shortcut is provided (avoid clutter). Modern editors allow easy inlining of shortcuts if really needed...
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#42
(2016-06-22, 13:22)Philippe Hurbain Wrote:
Quote:First point: In my eyes we should have the flat version and eventually the formed version. Part+Sticker is just nice to have but not necessary in my eyes.
The only use I see for a flat version of formed stickers is for BOMs. But part+formed sticker shortcut could be used for BOMs, so I propose that if flat version of sticker is not provided then a part+formed sticker should be created. This is of course to prevent a too heavy burden on sticker part author for something of little use.

Note: IMHO, part+flat sticker for simple "orthogonal" parts like bricks or tiles are probably mostly useless and clutter library.

OK - I'll leave as 'strongly encouraged'. In some cases the creation of a flat version my indeed be a precursor to building the formed version.

(2016-06-22, 13:22)Philippe Hurbain Wrote:
Quote:Second point: Yes, I'm with you.
Don't agree for the above reason.

(2016-06-22, 13:22)Philippe Hurbain Wrote:
Quote:Third point: They should not be hidden. I really like to build the full model with each individual part if possible.
No strong opinion. I'd rather favor hidden formed sticker if part+sticker shortcut is provided (avoid clutter). Modern editors allow easy inlining of shortcuts if really needed...
I'll remove the requirement for them to be hidden. I dont want to have to bother with changing the description of a formed sticker when a part+sticker file has been created.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#39
What is proposed looks fine to me.
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#43
I find the current draft (26 June 2016) fully acceptable.
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#44
I'm fine with the proposal

w.
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#45
I'm good with it also.
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#46
Me too!
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#47
Thanks for all the comments and discussion. The specification has now been updated on the LDraw.org documentation.
Chris (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#48
(2016-06-28, 18:10)Chris Dee Wrote: Thanks for all the comments and discussion. The specification has now been updated on the LDraw.org documentation.

Whoopie....
Condlines in the stickers.

Thank you Chris.
Reply
RE: Suggestions for a change of the sticker specs
#36
OK for me.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)