| | | | |
| |
| 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, 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
| | | | | | |