| |
In http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=11000, Philo wrote
"Speaking of rationalization, I would be very happy if we could find a coherent
naming scheme for parts 3651, 32039, 6553 (and 32013?) - I can't possibly
remember 6553 name...".
So here is a first suggestion:
Currently we have:
3651.dat Technic Connector
32039.dat Technic Connector with Axlehole
6553.dat Technic Pole Reverser Handle
32013.dat Technic Angle Connector #1
32034.dat Technic Angle Connector #2
32016.dat Technic Angle Connector #3
32192.dat Technic Angle Connector #4
32015.dat Technic Angle Connector #5
32014.dat Technic Angle Connector #6
But, on the Parts Tracker 3651 has already been updated to
3651.dat Technic Bush with Pin Hole 90 Degrees and 2 Studs
Technica (http://isodomos.com/technica/technica.html) uses:
3651.dat Piston rod, 77
32039.dat Catch, w/ cross hole
6553.dat Catch
32031.dat Angle connector, #1
32034.dat Angle connector, #2 (180deg)
32016.dat Angle connector, #3 (157.5deg)
32192.dat Angle connector, #4 (135deg)
32015.dat Angle connector, #5 (112.5deg)
32014.dat Angle connector, #6 (90deg)
Bricklink (http://www.bricklink.com) uses:
3651.dat Technic, Axle and Pin Connector
32039.dat Technic, Axle Connector with Axle Hole
6553.dat Technic Pole Reverser Handle
32013.dat Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Angled #1
32034.dat Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Angled #2 - 180 degrees
32016.dat Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Angled #3 - 157.5 degrees
32192.dat Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Angled #4 - 135 degrees
32015.dat Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Angled #5 - 112.5 degrees
32014.dat Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Angled #6 - 90 degrees
I'd like to suggest:
3651.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Bush with 2 Studs
32039.dat Technic Connector Axlehole to Axlehole
6553.dat Technic Connector Axlehole to Axle
32013.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axlehole #1
32034.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #2 (180 degree)
32016.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #3 (157.5 degree)
32192.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #4 (135 degree)
32015.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #5 (112.5 degree)
32014.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #6 (90 degree)
I'd like to seek the opinion of the community. As usual, I am seeking ideas and
suggestions, but not hoping for concensus, so I will make the final decision
based on what I read here.
This is not another opportunity to open up the "just use BrickLink names"
discusson.
Chris Dee
|
|
| |
> I'd like to suggest:
> 3651.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Bush with 2 Studs
> 32039.dat Technic Connector Axlehole to Axlehole
> 6553.dat Technic Connector Axlehole to Axle
> 32013.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axlehole #1
> 32034.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #2 (180 degree)
> 32016.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #3 (157.5 degree)
> 32192.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #4 (135 degree)
> 32015.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #5 (112.5 degree)
> 32014.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #6 (90 degree)
I am mostly OK with your suggestion. The only slightly illogical point is that
the bush of 3651 and the Axlehole of 32039 are not so different, so why not name
them the same?
Otherwise, the other drawback of these names (especially angle connectors) is
that they are fairly long, requiring a large screen estate to see them in full.
Fortunately yellow bubbles do help!
May I suggest also, for parts that were named differently for so long, to add
significant parts of their old names in keywords? (Angle, Pole Reverser
Handle...)
Philo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
> In http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=11000, Philo wrote
>
> "Speaking of rationalization, I would be very happy if we could find a coherent
> naming scheme for parts 3651, 32039, 6553 (and 32013?) - I can't possibly
> remember 6553 name...".
>
> So here is a first suggestion:
> I'd like to suggest:
> 3651.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Bush with 2 Studs
> 32039.dat Technic Connector Axlehole to Axlehole
> 6553.dat Technic Connector Axlehole to Axle
> 32013.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axlehole #1
> 32034.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #2 (180 degree)
> 32016.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #3 (157.5 degree)
> 32192.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #4 (135 degree)
> 32015.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #5 (112.5 degree)
> 32014.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #6 (90 degree)
>
> I'd like to seek the opinion of the community. As usual, I am seeking ideas and
> suggestions, but not hoping for concensus, so I will make the final decision
> based on what I read here.
>
> This is not another opportunity to open up the "just use BrickLink names"
> discusson.
>
> Chris Dee
I appreciate your work on this, but I wonder if there aren't other more
important changes (albeit probably more difficult ones) that would be of more
benefit to the community. I'm referring particularly to the present dichotomy of
Beams and Liftarms and their internal inconsistencies which fairly drives me
crazy any time I try to build something with LDraw.
As for the proposed names, although they are quite long they are also consistent
and very descriptive. I'm not clear on the use of "peghole" when what is
attached to these are pins - pinhole seems to make more sense.
Jetro
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jetro de Chateau wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
> > In http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=11000, Philo wrote
> >
> > "Speaking of rationalization, I would be very happy if we could find a coherent
> > naming scheme for parts 3651, 32039, 6553 (and 32013?) - I can't possibly
> > remember 6553 name...".
> >
> > So here is a first suggestion:
> > I'd like to suggest:
> > 3651.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Bush with 2 Studs
> > 32039.dat Technic Connector Axlehole to Axlehole
> > 6553.dat Technic Connector Axlehole to Axle
> > 32013.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axlehole #1
> > 32034.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #2 (180 degree)
> > 32016.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #3 (157.5 degree)
> > 32192.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #4 (135 degree)
> > 32015.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #5 (112.5 degree)
> > 32014.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #6 (90 degree)
> >
> > I'd like to seek the opinion of the community. As usual, I am seeking ideas and
> > suggestions, but not hoping for concensus, so I will make the final decision
> > based on what I read here.
> >
> > This is not another opportunity to open up the "just use BrickLink names"
> > discusson.
> >
> > Chris Dee
>
> I appreciate your work on this, but I wonder if there aren't other more
> important changes (albeit probably more difficult ones) that would be of more
> benefit to the community. I'm referring particularly to the present dichotomy of
> Beams and Liftarms and their internal inconsistencies which fairly drives me
> crazy any time I try to build something with LDraw.
>
> As for the proposed names, although they are quite long they are also consistent
> and very descriptive. I'm not clear on the use of "peghole" when what is
> attached to these are pins - pinhole seems to make more sense.
>
> Jetro
I am surprised by this renewed criticism of the Technic Beam naming as we have
worked very hard on resolving that issue over the past few releases. Is your
library up-to-date?
As mentioned at http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=16208 most of these issues were
resolved in 2009-01, and as of now (2009-03) there are only two "Technic Liftarm
..." parts in the official library:
32079.dat Technic Liftarm 1 x 9 Offset Cross
32173.dat Technic Liftarm 2 x 7 with 2 Ball Joints
although there are a few unofficial parts named that way on the Parts Tracker.
All other beams follow the nomenclature
Technic Beam nn [x nn] [x 0.5] [Liftarm] [Qualifiers]
where the "x 0.5" is used to designate "thin" beams, and "Liftarm" is only added
to those that have an axle hole at one end.
Chris Dee
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jetro de Chateau wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I appreciate your work on this, but I wonder if there aren't other more
> important changes (albeit probably more difficult ones) that would be of more
> benefit to the community. I'm referring particularly to the present dichotomy of
> Beams and Liftarms and their internal inconsistencies which fairly drives me
> crazy any time I try to build something with LDraw.
>
> As for the proposed names, although they are quite long they are also consistent
> and very descriptive. I'm not clear on the use of "peghole" when what is
> attached to these are pins - pinhole seems to make more sense.
>
> Jetro
"Peghole" is already used in a few part descriptions in the official library,
and there are even primitives named peghole* to support their representation.
"Pinhole" is not used in the official library at all.
Chris Dee
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Jetro de Chateau wrote:
> > I appreciate your work on this, but I wonder if there aren't other more
> > important changes (albeit probably more difficult ones) that would be of more
> > benefit to the community. I'm referring particularly to the present dichotomy of
> > Beams and Liftarms and their internal inconsistencies which fairly drives me
> > crazy any time I try to build something with LDraw.
> > Jetro
>
> I am surprised by this renewed criticism of the Technic Beam naming as we have
> worked very hard on resolving that issue over the past few releases. Is your
> library up-to-date?
> Chris Dee
Chris,
My sincerest apologies for my remark - After double checking I realized that
although I had installed the latest updates, I had not purged the unofficial
files from the directories and started looking for liftarms to only find half...
Thank you (and anyone else who collaborated) for a magnificent job. I half
expected everything to become liftarm, but I see the wisdom in choosing the
general name Beam since it will also place those beams next to the bricks they
are so often used with. Thanks again!
Jetro
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
<insert scissors here>
> I'd like to suggest:
> 3651.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Bush with 2 Studs
> 32039.dat Technic Connector Axlehole to Axlehole
> 6553.dat Technic Connector Axlehole to Axle
> 32013.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axlehole #1
> 32034.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #2 (180 degree)
> 32016.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #3 (157.5 degree)
> 32192.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #4 (135 degree)
> 32015.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #5 (112.5 degree)
> 32014.dat Technic Connector Peghole to Axleholes #6 (90 degree)
<insert scissors here>
>
> Chris Dee
I myself would rather like to see something like Cross Blocks. My suggestion
would be:
3651.dat - Technic Connector (Pin/Bush) with 2 Studs
32039.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Bush)
6553.dat - Technic Connector (Axle) with Axle 1.5
32013.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin) #1
32034.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin/Axle) #2 (180 degree)
32016.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin/Axle) #3 (157.5 degree)
32192.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin/Axle) #4 (135 degree)
32015.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin/Axle) #5 (112.5 degree)
32014.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin/Axle) #6 (90 degree)
These are also a little bit shorter.. though not much.
-Santeri
|
|
| |
> I myself would rather like to see something like Cross Blocks. My suggestion
> would be:
>
> 3651.dat - Technic Connector (Pin/Bush) with 2 Studs
> 32039.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Bush)
> 6553.dat - Technic Connector (Axle) with Axle 1.5
> 32013.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin) #1
> 32034.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin/Axle) #2 (180 degree)
> 32016.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin/Axle) #3 (157.5 degree)
> 32192.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin/Axle) #4 (135 degree)
> 32015.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin/Axle) #5 (112.5 degree)
> 32014.dat - Technic Connector (Axle/Pin/Axle) #6 (90 degree)
>
> These are also a little bit shorter.. though not much.
It makes sense, and has the benefit of homogeneous naming with cross blocks.
Philo
|
|
|
