Subject:
|
Re: Technic Beams vs. Liftarms (was Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:56:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
15652 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
| (...) 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 (...) (14 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
