Numbering of Sticker Parts


Numbering of Sticker Parts
#1
As we are in the progress of amending the Sticker Specifications, what do you think of adding this one:

recently, LEGO started to print numbers next to their stickers to easier identify them, it looks like common sense to include this number as a letter in the part number, i.e. 01 -> "a", etc.
If there are more than 26 stickers on a sheet, they should be numbered as 27 -> aa, 28 -> ab

WOuld it make sense to add this and is it compatible with the library, i.e. was there enough common sense in the past to number the stickers accordingly since they introduced this scheme?
Reply
RE: Numbering of Sticker Parts
#2
(Today, 6:49)Gerald Lasser Wrote: As we are in the progress of amending the Sticker Specifications, what do you think of adding this one:

recently, LEGO started to print numbers next to their stickers to easier identify them, it looks like common sense to include this number as a letter in the part number, i.e. 01 -> "a", etc.
If there are more than 26 stickers on a sheet, they should be numbered as 27 -> aa, 28 -> ab

WOuld it make sense to add this and is it compatible with the library, i.e. was there enough common sense in the past to number the stickers accordingly since they introduced this scheme?
+1
LEGO ergo sum
Reply
RE: Numbering of Sticker Parts
#5
Looks wise. I would also suggest to add a #nn with number as keyword.
Reply
RE: Numbering of Sticker Parts
#3
(Today, 6:49)aGerald Lasser Wrote: As we are in the progress of amending the Sticker Specifications, what do you think of adding this one:

recently, LEGO started to print numbers next to their stickers to easier identify them, it looks like common sense to include this number as a letter in the part number, i.e. 01 -> "a", etc.
If there are more than 26 stickers on a sheet, they should be numbered as 27 -> aa, 28 -> ab

WOuld it make sense to add this and is it compatible with the library, i.e. was there enough common sense in the past to number the stickers accordingly since they introduced this scheme?

I really like this idea. as we already use a, b, c identifier this should be easy. For sheets without number it's up to the author.
There is only one more thing, we need to discuss in my eyes: How do we number the stickers, if TLG uses different numbers for the same sticker? Like 04 and 05 are identical. Should we model d and alias as e or just d and continue with f?
Reply
RE: Numbering of Sticker Parts
#4
(11 hours ago)Max Martin Richter Wrote: I really like this idea. as we already use a, b, c identifier this should be easy. For sheets without number it's up to the author.
There is only one more thing, we need to discuss in my eyes: How do we number the stickers, if TLG uses different numbers for the same sticker? Like 04 and 05 are identical. Should we model d and alias as e or just d and continue with f?

I just browsed a few numbered stickers, and found that LEGO uses one number for the same sticker, even if it is located on a different spot on the sheet (see the technic sheet)

This seems to apply for the recent sheets (back to 2017 at least)
[Image: 10265stk01.png]

[Image: 10266stk01.original.png]

[Image: 42097stk01.png]

Although this one from 2015, uses two numbers for the same print (6 and 7)
It seems at some point in time there was a change of mind.
[Image: 75915stk01a.png]
[Image: 75920stk01b.png]

I would rather not model them or make an alias for them
Reply
RE: Numbering of Sticker Parts
#6
(Today, 6:49)Gerald Lasser Wrote: As we are in the progress of amending the Sticker Specifications, what do you think of adding this one:

recently, LEGO started to print numbers next to their stickers to easier identify them, it looks like common sense to include this number as a letter in the part number, i.e. 01 -> "a", etc.
If there are more than 26 stickers on a sheet, they should be numbered as 27 -> aa, 28 -> ab

WOuld it make sense to add this and is it compatible with the library, i.e. was there enough common sense in the past to number the stickers accordingly since they introduced this scheme?

Wouldn't it be better (and easier for users to use) to simply ditch the letter suffixes on stickers, and go with -nn? As in, 001234-01.dat, 001234-02.dat, etc. For the old sheets where two identical stickers were given different numbers, I'm honestly not sure what i feel is the best solution, but I don't have a problem with simply using the lowest number.
Reply
RE: Numbering of Sticker Parts
#7
Personally, I find it more user friendly with the numbers, but what happens to the existing stickers?
These would then all have to be renumbered.
Currently about 1000 official and about 350 unofficial stickers.
If you stay with the letters, you would also have to check all the stickers again and adapt them to the specification.
So it does not really matter.
I would be also for numbers.
If nothing goes right, go left.
Reply
RE: Numbering of Sticker Parts
#8
(42 minutes ago)Johann Eisner Wrote: Personally, I find it more user friendly with the numbers, but what happens to the existing stickers?
These would then all have to be renumbered.
Currently about 1000 official and about 350 unofficial stickers.
If you stay with the letters, you would also have to check all the stickers again and adapt them to the specification.
So it does not really matter.
I would be also for numbers.

I think that if we change the spec, we need to explicitly state that existing files get left alone. If we change it to require future files to have letters that are in the same order as the numbers on the sticker sheet, it's useful, but not great. Not too many people know off the top of their head what the 12th letter of the alphabet is.

On the other hand, if we change it to require future files to have a different naming scheme, we introduce confusion, since all the old stickers will have visibly different filenames from the new stickers. While that's not good, having the number be right there would make those stickers easier for people to use. I'm not sure which is better.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: Travis Cobbs, 1 Guest(s)