Just to clarify the 3 days part though, that is the implementation period currently visible in the GitHub history. The research, planning and architecture work started roughly 2 weeks before that.
But I agree with the broader point. The useful part is whether the tool actually helps someone understand the anatomy better, and that is what I care most about improving now.
That's great. It reminds me of Elsevier's full-body anatomy tool which is very cool but requires a license of like $60 dollars per year (probably targeted at doctors and medical students). I hope someone can replicate the essence of it and make such a tool available for free.
That is very close to what I would like this project to become over time. There are some excellent anatomy tools out there, but many are behind subscriptions or institutional licenses.
My goal with Dental Scope is to see how far an open source version can go, especially if dentists, students, developers and 3D artists start contributing to it. Full body anatomy would obviously be a much larger undertaking, but I would love for the project to gradually expand in that direction.
The Wikipedia comparison is probably much more ambitious than where the project is today, but the idea of a freely accessible educational resource is what makes me do this.
Probably one of the automatic spam detector in HN, sometimes they have false positives. Try vouching the comments if they are good. (If that doesn't work after a while, you also can send and email to hn@ycombinator.com so dang/tomhow can take a look.)
The implementation that is currently visible in the GitHub commit history was done over about 3 days, yes. But that does not include the research, planning and architecture work that happened before I started committing the implementation.
I spent roughly 2 weeks researching the domain, figuring out the structure of the tool, planning the architecture and deciding how the different anatomical layers and interactions should work before the repo history you are looking at began.
ivanjermakov · · focus · HN ↗
fifilura · · focus · HN ↗
Not the engineering effort behind it.
It still looks great. And very good for understanding whatever it is my dentist is doing with my teeth.
Zeruxe · · focus · HN ↗
Just to clarify the 3 days part though, that is the implementation period currently visible in the GitHub history. The research, planning and architecture work started roughly 2 weeks before that.
But I agree with the broader point. The useful part is whether the tool actually helps someone understand the anatomy better, and that is what I care most about improving now.
Zeruxe · · focus · HN ↗
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
This could be a part of Wikipedia.
Zeruxe · · focus · HN ↗
My goal with Dental Scope is to see how far an open source version can go, especially if dentists, students, developers and 3D artists start contributing to it. Full body anatomy would obviously be a much larger undertaking, but I would love for the project to gradually expand in that direction.
The Wikipedia comparison is probably much more ambitious than where the project is today, but the idea of a freely accessible educational resource is what makes me do this.
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
Zeruxe · · focus · HN ↗
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://imgur.com/a/ZmsyDWZ" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/a/ZmsyDWZ
note your comment at the bottom of that image
Zeruxe · · focus · HN ↗
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
Zeruxe · · focus · HN ↗
zupa-hu · · focus · HN ↗
zupa-hu · · focus · HN ↗
Zeruxe: in case you are unfamiliar, this means most people can’t see them, only those who are logged in and have showdead enabled.
Zeruxe · · focus · HN ↗
gus_massa · · focus · HN ↗
Zeruxe · · focus · HN ↗
Zeruxe · · focus · HN ↗
I spent roughly 2 weeks researching the domain, figuring out the structure of the tool, planning the architecture and deciding how the different anatomical layers and interactions should work before the repo history you are looking at began.