Minifig Head - Numbering of b and c variants

[Gerald Lasser]

I embarked on a Minifig Head design spree... after starting the figs from the Batman movie, I photographed around 300-400 heads in my collection. I have a pretty good workflow now with a proper template that does the projection and a template of cond-lines in LDPE to finish the file.

Nowadays most heads come in the "3626c" variant, not too long ago the main head was the"3626b" variant, however out in the wild there are also patterns that come in both "b" and "c".

Here I started to sort through the library and noticed that a few codes sport a different pattern in the "b" and "c" variant. Except for one already official (p8d), all of those are still on the PT (p02, p80, p8e, pap and pb3)

There are also designs that are the same already in the "b" and "c" variant. Here is the overview of all the numbers that exist in both variants: (yellow = official; green = on PT, seems ok; red/salmon = official/different pattern; light blue = on PT/different pattern
   

Now what do you think:

• If available in the real world, should we have a "b" and "c" variant in the Library?
  IMHO, I don't think so, as the difference is usually not visible, and it would inflate the library.
  
• Should the numbering be consistent for both variants, i.e. different patterns get a different numbers?
  In my opinion, a "3626bp8e" and a "3626cp8e" should be the same, even if it means there would be gaps in either the "c" or "b" pattern overview.
  

Next thing:

• The sheer number of heads, some of the allocations are not enough, e.g. Star Wars, there are several hundreds patterns, but we do have only space for 2 x 36 (r and s space)
  
• Also to verify if a pattern is already on the tracker gets difficult over time, there was already a proposal to improve the search for MF-torsi done, may be for the heads it could be an idea as well.
  

Edit: corrected typos

[Magnus Forsberg]

Hi Gerald,

This issue have been up at least twice before.
Here  and  Here

Some of the affected heads are still at the PT, and I think the conclusion was that we should not make both b and c-versions.

But the issue might have to be solved if/when there is a decision about DesignID and ItemID  in Physical colour shortcuts.

[Gerald Lasser]

Thanks for the links!

I agree that we should not have b- and c- versions.

Additionally I would avoid having a similar pattern numbers sport a different one depending on the physical part, e.g. so avoiding 3626bp02 and a 3626cp02 having a different pattern.
That would mean moving 3626cp02, 3626cp80, 3626cp8e, 3626cpap and 3626cpb3 to an alternative available number.

That 3626cp8d is already official with a different pattern, don't know if that shall be touched?


What's important in my opinion, it an extension of the numbering scheme for parts that come in a huge number of variants. The theoretical available space is 36 (0-z) x 36 = 1296. There are more than double the number of heads and torsi around...