Unofficial File parts/87084.dat

Next File | Prev File | Download | Review | Edit | CA Header Edit | Events

File Header:

0 Duplo Brick  2 x  3
0 Name: 87084.dat
0 Author: Rolf Osterthun [Rolf]
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Part
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt

0 BFC CERTIFY CCW

0 !CATEGORY Brick

Status:
Certified! (ACCCX)
Size: 1221 bytes

Reviewers' certifications:

MMR1988=certify
Rolf=novote
Steffen=certify
cwdee=certify
mikeheide=certify

Required (unofficial) subfiles:
(none)

Related (unofficial) files:
(none)

File reviews and updates:

At Wed Jan 2 11:10:08 2013, the file was initially submitted.
Submitted by: Rolf
Comments:
This part has been drawn without fillets (like the existing Duplo parts). Should I add a "(Needs Work)"?

======================================================================
At Wed Jan 2 11:40:03 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Philo
Certification: certify
Comments:
Perfect like this for me (fillets should be used only for hires renderings -> LGEO parts or similar)

======================================================================
At Sat Jan 5 20:15:36 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: novote
Comments:
could use stug7-2x2.dat

======================================================================
At Sun Jan 6 14:05:12 2013, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: Rolf
Comments:
Uses now the stug7/2x2.dat.

For this part I own only a version where the logo inside the studs is "LEGO". For many other parts I found versions with the logo "LEGO" and versions with the logo "DUPLO". E.g. the duplo brick 2x4. They have the same design ID (3011) but different logos...

Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Sun Jan 6 15:30:06 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MMR1988
Certification: hold
Comments:
Sorry, but stud group shouldn't be coloured.

======================================================================
At Sun Jan 6 16:30:07 2013, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: Rolf
Comments:
Ups, sorry.

Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Sun Jan 6 16:55:03 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MMR1988
Certification: certify
No comments were posted with this review.

======================================================================
At Sun Jan 6 17:00:13 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: mikeheide
Certification: certify
No comments were posted with this review.

======================================================================
At Sun Jan 6 20:10:04 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: certify
No comments were posted with this review.

======================================================================
At Mon Jan 7 09:50:02 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Rolf
Certification: novote
Comments:
Would it be better to use two stug7-1x3 stud-groups instead of one stug7-2x2 stud-group and two normal studs?

======================================================================
At Mon Jan 7 10:05:02 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MMR1988
Certification: certify
Comments:
Yesterday, I thought about creating a 2 x 1 stugduplo for using it here.
But for me it was OK in the way like it is.
Nevertheless if you want to change to two 1 x 3 stugduplo feel free to do it. I will re-cert here as fast as possible.

======================================================================
At Mon Jan 7 12:10:04 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: certify
Comments:
i was also unsure about that, do whatever you prefer, i'll also easily re-cert.
my reasoning behind not creating that stug was that i couldn't think of
more uses of that primitive than just here.
thus, i reasoned that we could create it later in a next iteration once we
discover more uses for it. until then, its creation would just save 1 line here,
and that was too small benefit for me, compared to the creation of a new primitive.
the case was different for triangle. dat, where i saw many potential uses
AND quite a significant efficiency (reducing 4 lines to 1 at each use, that's
a good factor)

======================================================================
At Tue Jan 8 18:35:31 2013 a Parts Tracker Admin edited the header.
======================================================================
At Tue Jan 8 18:35:35 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: cwdee
Certification: certify
No comments were posted with this review.