Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | mfav  | | Posted: | Mar 21, 2020 21:47 | | Subject: | Re: Clips Ahoy, part three. | | Viewed: | 189 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, popsicle writes:
| | I’m curious though, why do all of the active links on your fup page, link
to Law’s site, Brick Owl?
|
With all due respect, it's none of your business.
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 19, 2020 20:21 | | Subject: | Re: Just a little something to BRIGHTEN your day | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| I'm tired, but it kind of seems like you're willing to cut Russell some
slack for being sloppy, but not extending the same courtesy to me. Okay. I isn't
perfeɔt.
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 19, 2020 20:14 | | Subject: | Re: Just a little something to BRIGHTEN your day | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| I know it doesn't count for much, but, yeah. I agree. Opal.
Anything to lessen the color naming confusion is good.
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 19, 2020 18:58 | | Subject: | Re: Just a little something to BRIGHTEN your day | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| Apologies, Sylvain.
I typically cut most or all of the quoted post because I figure if folks are
invested enough, they'll read the thread. I hate the posts where they are
187 messages long and the whole thing is quoted and quoted and quoted to the
point you can't find the current content.
Not trying to poke you in les yeux or anything like that. Just saying that
satin is a finish, and if anyone's been paying attention, Russell said they
were calling the color satin (for now).
Satin is not a color. It is a fabric. And from the fabric, adopted a a term for
a finish in papers and other coatings.
That is all.
|
 |
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 19, 2020 17:22 | | Subject: | Re: Just a little something to BRIGHTEN your day | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Colors, Teup writes:
| | […]
Hmm in my understanding, "satin" refers to the way a colour looks (like matte,
glossy, metallic) and not to any specific actual colour. Not sure if I'm
right, but Opal certainly sounds a lot better to me.
|
|
Satin is a finish. It's an indication of smoothness and reflectance, similar
or reminiscent of the material.
Other finishes in paper are wove, bond, felt, laid, and linen...these are typically
indicative of a texture that's pressed into the paper at the time of manufacture.
These finishes are on uncoated (not glossy) stock.
Some coated stock finishes are gloss, matte, and dull.
Paint will also use silk as a designation of finish. It usually lies between
matte and gloss.
If BrickLink is going to use "silk" as a color, then I'd like to suggest
burlap, corduroy, hemp, twigs, type two, and open O for future colors, because
they're also just as fun and useful. Hey! Everybody knows what color type
two is, right?
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 18, 2020 20:46 | | Subject: | Clips Ahoy, Part 2! Attention StormChaser | | Viewed: | 136 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| http://v4ei.com/brickref/clips-k-v.php
Some takeaway observations so far.
Catalog is inconsistent in how it treats variants.
- Sometimes there is one ID number for two different designs.
-- Sometimes these design differences are noted, other times not
- Sometimes there is one ID number plus a letter (1234a, 1234b, etc.) indicating
different designs
- Sometimes there is one ID number plus "alternate numbers" for a single design
-- Sometimes these alternate ID numbers are the same design
-- Sometimes these alternate ID numbers are a different design
I would suggest that 48729 and 48729b are functionally different designs.
I would suggest that 48729b is actually 41005, and 41005 is a later variant of
48729b.
21 unique clip shapes to this point.
Some clip shape differences are obvious and others are subtle. Many probably
can't be distinguished by most people, even upon close examination. Through
the process of photographing these elements, and bringing the actual 6mm size
up to somewhere around 180mm these differences become more apparent.
So the differences are now cataloged and you can deal with them or not as you
see fit.
There's probably another page or two to come, but this is pretty slow going.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 17:28 | | Subject: | Re: New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, amthatkindoforc writes:
| | For the former:
Minifigure, Head [Pattern] - Blocked Open Stud, 1 Bar
For the latter:
Minifigure, Head [Pattern] - Blocked Open Stud, 2 Hole
|
I'd suggest the naming convention requires some additional consideration.
We would like the naming convention to be somewhat indicative of the form of
the obstruction for unambiguous recognition. I fear using "one bar" or "two holes"
leaves us vulnerable to too many potential design changes down the line. I'm
attaching a diagram with labels, all of which are accurate but few which are
unique and unambiguous.
With this in mind, I suggest further discussion.
|
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | I would be in favor of the part size being determined by the overall part dimensions
and not just the base that attaches to studs in the plane tail category
(and possibly other categories.) However, I think that most categories (modified
bricks, modified plates, etc.) would not benefit at all from such size alterations
in their names.
|
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think this is the situation we're in
right now. Some are thought of "one way" and some are thought of "another way".
The "description" labelling might be one way where the "stud dimensions" labelling
might be another way, and the "shipping dimensions" a third way...
It gets real messy real fast.
I'm up to a potential database field count of 15 so far...
I know: roadmap 36.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 23:24 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| The 2340 has studs on the top, clearly making it a1x5 in stud length.
Anyway, the question is...is the item on the roadmap?
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 22:41 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| | So that makes a a 1x3? |
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 20:52 | | Subject: | StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 230 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.
Is there a standardization scheme in the works for items like these shown, and
similar items, where the length exceeds the footprint of the attachment plate?
If you're going by the scheme used for 6239, then 2430 ought to be a 1x5.
If you're going by the scheme used for 2430, then 6239 ought to be a 2x3.
I know this is bound to have implications all over the catalog with many modified
bricks and plates and other things, especially when you get into SNOT pieces,
but there's inconsistency within and across categories now.
One would think the overall x-y-z dimensions of the piece would be considered
every time...
I know this is going to require some quiet contemplation followed by noisy debate,
but some semblance of consistency would be really nice to have.
|
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 14:19 | | Subject: | Re: Purist Custom Figures | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| Your suggestion to add functionality on this web site simply will not gain any
traction with administration.
If you think it's a really great idea, get yourself a domain name, make a
web site, take a bunch of pictures, create individual pages that reference the
appropriate part numbers, make a copy-and-paste box containing the particulars
as outlined here:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=207
Then folks can select the xml code from your site and paste it into the box on
this site.
Voila. Wanted list populated.
Whether your idea is good or not is pretty much moot because it's not going
to happen here. Because it's not.
Take a look:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageList.asp?ID=8&v=c&max=200&status=0
If you click through, you'll see there are suggestions there going back over
a decade. So once those get sifted through, then, you know...
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 28, 2020 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I'll state the obvious: put the color in the description field, not the color
field.
Clear carrier
White carrier
Silver carrier
etc.
In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | […]
Regarding listing these with color, one of the things we would lose by doing
it this way is the rather dependable position that sticker sheets occupy at the
top of the inventory.
|
Only if you sort by colour first.
I guess most people don’t change the default sorting but it’s nonetheless a welcome
option.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 17:39 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | | | That thing ought to be a 2x8 oughtn't it?
|
That it ought.
|
If the next argument I hear is that it should be a 1 x 2 because that's how
many anti-studs are on the bottom then the
should also be a 1 x 2, right?
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 17:09 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Or we could talk about this part:
which doesn’t have anything in its size field but with the same “rule” would
be deemed of size 1 x 2.
|
That thing ought to be a 2x8 oughtn't it?
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 16:53 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, TheBrickGuys writes:
| | But by looking at the picture it is very easy to determine what is meant by the
1x1 size and it is easy to see that the tooth sticks over the edge adding a little
more dimensional size to it but at least you can know the general size.
|
True, but in terms of discovery...search...if you want to find something that's
1x1 and you find all these other things: 1 1/3, 1.4, 1 1/8, how useful is that
set of results?
Now granted, the whole search mechanism and the whole database need to be addressed,
but either the data is correct or it is incorrect. Sort of correct, sometimes,
in some instances, if you look at a picture, and so on...that's just noise
to be sifted through. So the results are useless or nearly useless.
Folks have settled for this dog poop data here for so long, they've become
accustomed to or accepting of it. And there's no need. These things can be
fixed now...at least to some degree. Everybody has their own kludge. Nobody should
need one.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Feb 27, 2020 15:29 | | Subject: | Re: Dimensions 10507 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | This honestly is a good idea. But it would require individually changing the
dimensions for 30,501 parts.
|
Yeah. So?
(I'd think Axaday would be all over it once he stops taunting Bill.)
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
