 | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> I'd like to see this discussion reach other "keepers of lego part names", at
> least for feedback. I don't expect that a consensus would be reached.
(ahem) That might work better with crossposting to, say, lugnet.parts or
lugnet.cad.dat.parts, instead of hiding the discussion in .cad. . .
> Unless I've missed something, we've never had a part title which included LDU.
> I believe we've only measured in studs, brick-heights, and millimeters.
To clarify: that includes "local" units, i.e., stud and brick height
measurements are relative to the system (Primo, Duplo, System, etc.) of the
parts being described (with the curious exception of part 33029).
TWS Garrison
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see this discussion reach other "keepers of lego part names", at
> > least for feedback. I don't expect that a consensus would be reached.
>
> (ahem) That might work better with crossposting to, say, lugnet.parts or
> lugnet.cad.dat.parts, instead of hiding the discussion in .cad. . .
Point taken - thanks.
> > Unless I've missed something, we've never had a part title which included LDU.
> > I believe we've only measured in studs, brick-heights, and millimeters.
>
> To clarify: that includes "local" units, i.e., stud and brick height
> measurements are relative to the system (Primo, Duplo, System, etc.) of the
> parts being described (with the curious exception of part 33029).
The curious case of 33029 was discussed here
<http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=10339> with a good argument to stick with "system
scale" for Scala parts.
> TWS Garrison
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Thomas Garrison wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
I’d like to see this discussion reach other “keepers of lego part names”, at
least for feedback. I don’t expect that a consensus would be reached.
|
(ahem) That might work better with crossposting to, say, lugnet.parts or
lugnet.cad.dat.parts, instead of hiding the discussion in .cad. . .
|
Also lugnet.db.brictionary ;)
| |
| |
Unless I’ve missed something, we’ve never had a part title which included
LDU. I believe we’ve only measured in studs, brick-heights, and millimeters.
|
To clarify: that includes “local” units, i.e., stud and brick height
measurements are relative to the system (Primo, Duplo, System, etc.) of the
parts being described (with the curious exception of part 33029).
|
I support the idea of standardised names for tyres - I would probably vote for
millimetres, as that would match better with the most of the ones molded by TLC.
And I would further suggest that wheel dimensions be changed to millimetres too,
to match.
I think mm are more intuitive - even those of us used to working with LDU, it’s
not something most of us probably intuitively work with. If you pick up a part,
it’s “2 x 2 studs” or “4 plates”, or in th case of non-standard parts, usually
inches or mm. So if I pick up a wheel and want to find it, it’s easier to think
“diameter about 4mm” than to work out what that is in LDU. So inches or mm seem
more logical to me, and I put mm first because
- It’s what I’m more used to using
- It’s easily converted to/from both inches and LDU and
- It’s the standard unit in Aus, and it would be inconsistent to stick with “tyre” and then use inches...
ROSCO
| | | | | | |
