I am not saying 80 is bad, just something to be aware of if going that route, In fact I am even a bit surprised at that, and 90? Pretty much good to go... the tracking on a decent plot cutter, or a slight variation between scans, could be thought to be culprit one might assume, but still very usable as plans...If that's you b/103 donating to that project, let Jenni take a moment to just say Thanks.
It is entirely possible that a set of plans ranked in the 80s may be perfect and justify a high 90s score. Personally, I have cut cabinets I have scored in the 80s blindly without doing additional verifications. The concern is someone sending the plans off to a CNC shop to have the wood cut. I try and provide printable plans that can be used as templates for everyone doing this by hand. The proof is really in the cutting and assembly. Most of the mistakes are not with the tracing, but are more with the placement of blocking for internal parts, drill holes, or a panel with dados. I find that I occasionally do mental math while measuring the non-side panels and this is where my mistakes occur. Recently, I cut a Dragon's Lair cabinet. Everything went together nearly perfectly, but the speaker mounting holes were off about 1/8" from each other when I tried to mount the aftermarket plexi. Is it the plans, is it the plexi, is it both (probably the plans)
I have traced some cabinets that have a .5" variation between cabinets, so original quality control was not always that tight. Variation seems to be much higher when multiple runs of cabinets were made (Nintendo, Konami TMNT style, etc...), especially in different countries. Atari did this a lot with their US vs. Ireland builds of cabinets.
Overall, the plans are scored harshly. I would much rather under promise and over deliver.
I wanted to thank everyone who has helped with the site. Anyone who can provide feedback after using a set of plans or provide any pictures from their builds.... it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Brian