| |
With almost all the "Technic Axle Joiner" parts on the Parts Tracker, I'd like
to take the opportunity to rationalise the part descriptions which have
developed over time as these parts have appeared. Currently we have:
6536.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular
32184.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 3L
32068.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 3 Long
32291.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular Double
41678.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular Double Split
42003.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular with 2 Holes
32557.dat Technic Pin Joiner Dual Perpendicular
I'd like to seek the opinion of the community. I am seeking ideas and
suggestions, but not hoping for concensus, so I will make the final decision
based on what I read here.
Doing nothing is not an option as we need to discriminate between 32184 and
32068, which have essentially the same description.
Technica (http://isodomos.com/technica/registry/connect/conn_7.php) calls these
all "Cross Blocks", but is still imperfect in that it fails to describe that
32557 is a Pin to Pin connector.
Peeron follows LDraw.
Bricklink uses:
6536 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular
32184 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular 3L with Center Hole
32068 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular 3 Long
32291 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular Double
41678 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular Double Split
42003 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular with 2 Holes
32557 Technic, Pin Connector Perpendicular Long
As an opening bid, I'm suggesting adding dimensions and the sequence of axle
holes / pin holes:
6536.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 2 (Axle/Pin)
32184.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Axle)
32068.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin)
32291.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 2 (Axle/Twin Pin)
41678.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 2 Split (Axle/Twin Pin)
42003.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Pin)
32557.dat Technic Pin Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 3 (Pin/Pin/Twin Pin)
Comments please.
Chris Dee (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
|
|
| |
> As an opening bid, I'm suggesting adding dimensions and the sequence of axle
> holes / pin holes:
> 6536.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 2 (Axle/Pin)
> 32184.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Axle)
> 32068.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin)
> 32291.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 2 (Axle/Twin Pin)
> 41678.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 2 Split (Axle/Twin Pin)
> 42003.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Pin)
> 32557.dat Technic Pin Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 3 (Pin/Pin/Twin Pin)
I agree it is time to rationalize naming of this similar parts... I would go one
step further and name all of them "Technic Joiner Perpendicular xxxx" since hole
type sequence is described in the end of name, and a
6536.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 2 (Axle/Pin)
could be considered as a
6536.dat Technic Pin Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 2 (Pin/Axle)
What about naming for 44809 and the new 63869?
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...
Philo
|
|
| |
Most of you know my opinion on this one - use BrickLink names.
Our community is dispursed enough. We need to work to unify what we can.
BrickLink names are the most widely used amongst the community. After all, how
many people convert their LDraw models to LDD and upload to LEGO Factory to
purchase parts? LDraw users who purchase parts specifically for a model,
primarily get them from BrickLink, and know the names of parts from BrickLink
and programs that use BL names like BrickStore.
If the LEGO Company opened up an online database with the names of the parts
that they currently produce, I could see an argument for using their names.
However, the BL database has been open from the start and many programs use it
to perform their tasks. If the LDraw names matched BL, it might allow these
programs to do more tasks.
Sorry if I didn't answer with specifics to your part numbers. I did look at the
BL names for these parts and they seem to identify them with more clarity for
each part.
Scott W.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> Most of you know my opinion on this one - use BrickLink names.
>
> Our community is dispursed enough. We need to work to unify what we can.
>
> BrickLink names are the most widely used amongst the community.
See, right there I couldn't agree with you less. I spend a lot more time
producing a design in LDraw than I do plugging the parts list into Bricklink,
and when I'm doing so I generally have to stick to part numbers rather than
descriptions because I can never remember the Bricklink names. LUGNET's part
guide and Peeron's inventory system follow the LDraw names where they're
available, so right there you also have three resources that are in agreement
through the entirety of their databases whenecver at least two resources list
the same part. It always struck me as odd and possibly somewhat exclusionary
that Bricklink often uses different names and part numbers (sometimes even when
both conventions appear to be using an official part number they aren't the same
number), especially given that Bricklink does not link back to any other
resource (on Peeron, for instance, you can find a link to download any approved
LDraw files for that specific part).
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee wrote:
> With almost all the "Technic Axle Joiner" parts on the Parts Tracker, I'd like
> to take the opportunity to rationalise the part descriptions which have
> developed over time as these parts have appeared. Currently we have:
>
> 6536.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular
> 32184.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 3L
> 32068.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 3 Long
> 32291.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular Double
> 41678.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular Double Split
> 42003.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular with 2 Holes
> 32557.dat Technic Pin Joiner Dual Perpendicular
None of those parts should really be referred to as "axle joiners" or "pin
joiners". The only parts that should have those names are the ones that join
them end-to-end. These parts are all what a hardware store would recognize as a
saddle joint, and I always think of them pictorally, at least for the three
3-long versions (+=o, +o+, and +oo, specifically).
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> > Most of you know my opinion on this one - use BrickLink names.
> >
> > Our community is dispursed enough. We need to work to unify what we can.
> >
> > BrickLink names are the most widely used amongst the community.
>
> See, right there I couldn't agree with you less. I spend a lot more time
> producing a design in LDraw than I do plugging the parts list into Bricklink,
> and when I'm doing so I generally have to stick to part numbers rather than
> descriptions because I can never remember the Bricklink names. LUGNET's part
> guide and Peeron's inventory system follow the LDraw names where they're
> available, so right there you also have three resources that are in agreement
> through the entirety of their databases whenecver at least two resources list
> the same part. It always struck me as odd and possibly somewhat exclusionary
> that Bricklink often uses different names and part numbers (sometimes even when
> both conventions appear to be using an official part number they aren't the same
> number), especially given that Bricklink does not link back to any other
> resource (on Peeron, for instance, you can find a link to download any approved
> LDraw files for that specific part).
Good thing you don't have to agree for the statement to still be true. Ldraw
has just over 3 thousand members. BrickLink has nearly 110 thousand.
Peeron is great for the one resource that it is most used for - historical
instructions on LEGO sets. However, Peeron is not at all a good resource for
current information on parts. Since they don't sell parts, they are very much
not likely to be the first to list a new type of part, nor are they likely to
describe the part correctly since part descriptions don't necessarily come from
someone who owns the part. Only BL can do these things with speed and accuracy;
as its primary purpose is to deal in real bricks.
Unless TLG starts giving exclussive info to Peeron or hands the latest parts to
an LDraw part author before going on sale, both Peeron and LDraw will always lag
behind BrickLink.
Just how out-of-date and inaccurate is the Peeron database? They were three
months late with the double cheese wedge, it still shows the temporary part
number, and (as with the single cheese wedge) they still show the wrong part
desciption of 33 degrees of slope: http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/x1972
As for the LUGNET database; it is simply LDraw in HTML format, so you're right,
it does follow the LDraw names.
Scott
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, David Laswell wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> > > Most of you know my opinion on this one - use BrickLink names.
> > >
> > > Our community is dispursed enough. We need to work to unify what we can.
> > >
> > > BrickLink names are the most widely used amongst the community.
> >
> > See, right there I couldn't agree with you less. I spend a lot more time
> > producing a design in LDraw than I do plugging the parts list into Bricklink,
> > and when I'm doing so I generally have to stick to part numbers rather than
> > descriptions because I can never remember the Bricklink names. LUGNET's part
> > guide and Peeron's inventory system follow the LDraw names where they're
> > available, so right there you also have three resources that are in agreement
> > through the entirety of their databases whenecver at least two resources list
> > the same part. It always struck me as odd and possibly somewhat exclusionary
> > that Bricklink often uses different names and part numbers (sometimes even when
> > both conventions appear to be using an official part number they aren't the same
> > number), especially given that Bricklink does not link back to any other
> > resource (on Peeron, for instance, you can find a link to download any approved
> > LDraw files for that specific part).
>
> Good thing you don't have to agree for the statement to still be true. Ldraw
> has just over 3 thousand members. BrickLink has nearly 110 thousand.
>
> Peeron is great for the one resource that it is most used for - historical
> instructions on LEGO sets. However, Peeron is not at all a good resource for
> current information on parts. Since they don't sell parts, they are very much
> not likely to be the first to list a new type of part, nor are they likely to
> describe the part correctly since part descriptions don't necessarily come from
> someone who owns the part. Only BL can do these things with speed and accuracy;
> as its primary purpose is to deal in real bricks.
>
> Unless TLG starts giving exclussive info to Peeron or hands the latest parts to
> an LDraw part author before going on sale, both Peeron and LDraw will always lag
> behind BrickLink.
>
> Just how out-of-date and inaccurate is the Peeron database? They were three
> months late with the double cheese wedge, it still shows the temporary part
> number, and (as with the single cheese wedge) they still show the wrong part
> desciption of 33 degrees of slope:
>
> As for the LUGNET database; it is simply LDraw in HTML format, so you're right,
> it does follow the LDraw names.
Not to point fingers or start a flame war but as I recall everytime anyone has
suggested that Bricklink change to conform to some other standard, it has been
rebuffed by the BL admins. This lack of willingness to compromise has, at least
in part, lead to the differences that exist. Until BL is willing to give up the
"my way or the highway" stance, nothing constuctive will ever happen.
-Orion
|
|
| |
> Not to point fingers or start a flame war but as I recall everytime anyone has
> suggested that Bricklink change to conform to some other standard, it has been
> rebuffed by the BL admins. This lack of willingness to compromise has, at least
> in part, lead to the differences that exist. Until BL is willing to give up the
> "my way or the highway" stance, nothing constuctive will ever happen.
>
> -Orion
So then, we shall say the same?
Both us and BL have long-lived and complicated systems. I never really expected
you or DATHeader to instantly change your way of life, but I believe that it is
time to consider subtle changes to help bring our languages together.
It probably doesn't get said often enough, but I certainly appreciate all of the
hard work that goes into creating parts for LDraw!
Scott W.
Member LSC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, David Laswell wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> > > Most of you know my opinion on this one - use BrickLink names.
> > >
> > > Our community is dispursed enough. We need to work to unify what we can.
> > >
> > > BrickLink names are the most widely used amongst the community.
> >
> > See, right there I couldn't agree with you less. I spend a lot more time
> > producing a design in LDraw than I do plugging the parts list into Bricklink,
> > and when I'm doing so I generally have to stick to part numbers rather than
> > descriptions because I can never remember the Bricklink names. LUGNET's part
> > guide and Peeron's inventory system follow the LDraw names where they're
> > available, so right there you also have three resources that are in agreement
> > through the entirety of their databases whenecver at least two resources list
> > the same part. It always struck me as odd and possibly somewhat exclusionary
> > that Bricklink often uses different names and part numbers (sometimes even when
> > both conventions appear to be using an official part number they aren't the same
> > number), especially given that Bricklink does not link back to any other
> > resource (on Peeron, for instance, you can find a link to download any approved
> > LDraw files for that specific part).
>
> Good thing you don't have to agree for the statement to still be true. Ldraw
> has just over 3 thousand members. BrickLink has nearly 110 thousand.
Good thing number of Ldraw members has nothing to do with number of Ldraw users
:)
While I agree it would be nice if the two sources matched, unfortunately they
serve totally different purposes, and that is unlikely to ever happen. BL has
items that will never be authored in Ldraw, and Ldraw has parts that will never
be in the BL catalog. So the only solution would be a totally separate list
containing the union of both, and the maintainer would have to get agreement
from both, make sure both are up to date, etc etc. Certainly not a job I'd want
to take on. And that's not even considering the major initial hassle in matching
all the part numbers.
So while BL may be the most up to date, I don't agree it would be the best
choice for the "master list", and I don't think there will ever be one (except
the one LEGO have, of course).
But then I am a renowned pessimist.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> If the LEGO Company opened up an online database with the names of the parts
> that they currently produce, I could see an argument for using their names.
> However, the BL database has been open from the start and many programs use it
> to perform their tasks. If the LDraw names matched BL, it might allow these
> programs to do more tasks.
The LEGO database lists the following names:
6536 CROSS BLOCK 90°
32184 DOUBLE CROSS BLOCK
32068 TECHNIC STEERING-GEAR 3M
32291 TECHNIC CROSS BLOCK 2X4,85
41678 TECHNIC CROSS BLOCK/FORK 2X2
42003 CROSS BLOCK 3M
32557 TECHNIC CROSSBLOCK 2X3
I really don't think that thier names are an option.
w.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> I agree it is time to rationalize naming of this similar parts... I would go one
> step further and name all of them "Technic Joiner Perpendicular xxxx" since hole
> type sequence is described in the end of name, and a
> 6536.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 2 (Axle/Pin)
> could be considered as a
> 6536.dat Technic Pin Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 2 (Pin/Axle)
>
> What about naming for 44809 and the new 63869?
I agree with Philo, would remove the Axle/Pin qualifier in front and go for
example with "Technic Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 2 (Axle/Pin)"
w.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> Just how out-of-date and inaccurate is the Peeron database? They were three
> months late with the double cheese wedge, it still shows the temporary part
> number, and (as with the single cheese wedge) they still show the wrong part
> desciption of 33 degrees of slope: http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/x1972
You bring up an excellent point. Go to Bricklink and do a catalog search on
"cheese wedge". It won't come up as "slope grille" either, while Peeron
produces seven different parts that merely include those words at various points
in their descriptions. Sorry, but their search engine verges on being an
excellent cure for the desire to continue living. LMK when they allow general
keyword searches instead of only turning up exact matches. Until then, I'll
continue to use Peeron as my primary source for part info, and go to Bricklink
only when I'm ready to actually start buying them.
|
|
| |
(why don't these show up in my email folder in spite of my subscription?)
In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee wrote:
> As an opening bid, I'm suggesting adding dimensions and the sequence of axle
> holes / pin holes:
> 6536.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 2 (Axle/Pin)
> 32184.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Axle)
> 32068.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin)
> 32291.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 2 (Axle/Twin Pin)
> 41678.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 2 Split (Axle/Twin Pin)
> 42003.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Pin)
> 32557.dat Technic Pin Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 3 (Pin/Pin/Twin Pin)
I'd be for dimensions but not the hole sequence.. the hole sequence goes into
redundancies IMHO. So for example I'd like 6536.dat to be "Technic Axle Joiner
Perpendicular 1 x 2".
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Willy Tschager wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Scott Wardlaw wrote:
> > If the LEGO Company opened up an online database with the names of the parts
> > that they currently produce, I could see an argument for using their names.
> > However, the BL database has been open from the start and many programs use it
> > to perform their tasks. If the LDraw names matched BL, it might allow these
> > programs to do more tasks.
>
> The LEGO database lists the following names:
>
> 6536 CROSS BLOCK 90°
> 32184 DOUBLE CROSS BLOCK
> 32068 TECHNIC STEERING-GEAR 3M
> 32291 TECHNIC CROSS BLOCK 2X4,85
> 41678 TECHNIC CROSS BLOCK/FORK 2X2
> 42003 CROSS BLOCK 3M
> 32557 TECHNIC CROSSBLOCK 2X3
>
> I really don't think that thier names are an option.
>
> w.
LEGO database?
To those who work for them, their part description may not be as optional as
ours. However, that doesn't mean that we should make emotional choices. I
worship TLG as much as the next AFOL, but we already know they don't put nearly
as much thought into the details surrounding the pieces as we do. If they did,
any AFOL should find these part names to be more than descriptive:
'Assembly Element', 'Butt', or 'Final Brick 2X2'.
Scott
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Santeri Piippo wrote:
> I'd be for dimensions but not the hole sequence.. the hole sequence goes into
> redundancies IMHO. So for example I'd like 6536.dat to be "Technic Axle
> Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 2".
Alright, that's cool...but how exactly would you suggest making the distinction
between the three different 1x3 saddle joints? Perhaps like this:
> 32068.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3
> 32184.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3, The Other
> 42003.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3, The Other Other
And then you just need to assume that everyone knows exactly which order in
which these parts were first used. Hole sequence may be redundant for some of
the other parts on that list, but they are critical for keeping those three
parts straight from each other.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee wrote:
> With almost all the "Technic Axle Joiner" parts on the Parts Tracker, I'd like
> to take the opportunity to rationalise the part descriptions which have
> developed over time as these parts have appeared. Currently we have:
>
> 6536.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular
> 32184.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 3L
> 32068.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 3 Long
> 32291.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular Double
> 41678.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular Double Split
> 42003.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular with 2 Holes
> 32557.dat Technic Pin Joiner Dual Perpendicular
>
> I'd like to seek the opinion of the community. I am seeking ideas and
> suggestions, but not hoping for concensus, so I will make the final decision
> based on what I read here.
>
> Doing nothing is not an option as we need to discriminate between 32184 and
> 32068, which have essentially the same description.
>
> Technica (http://isodomos.com/technica/registry/connect/conn_7.php) calls these
> all "Cross Blocks", but is still imperfect in that it fails to describe that
> 32557 is a Pin to Pin connector.
>
> Peeron follows LDraw.
>
> Bricklink uses:
> 6536 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular
> 32184 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular 3L with Center Hole
> 32068 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular 3 Long
> 32291 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular Double
> 41678 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular Double Split
> 42003 Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular with 2 Holes
> 32557 Technic, Pin Connector Perpendicular Long
>
> As an opening bid, I'm suggesting adding dimensions and the sequence of axle
> holes / pin holes:
> 6536.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 2 (Axle/Pin)
> 32184.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Axle)
> 32068.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin)
> 32291.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 2 (Axle/Twin Pin)
> 41678.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 2 Split (Axle/Twin Pin)
> 42003.dat Technic Axle Joiner Perpendicular 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Pin)
> 32557.dat Technic Pin Joiner Perpendicular 2 x 3 (Pin/Pin/Twin Pin)
>
> Comments please.
>
> Chris Dee (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Thank you for all the comments on this (including those that veered off-topic).
I like the "Cross Block" designation, especially as this is a common theme in
the LEGO descriptions. It has the added benefit that it is shorter than "Joiner
Perpendicular", leaving more space for qualification if needed. So I will go
ahead with:
6536.dat Technic Cross Block 1 x 2 (Axle/Pin)
32184.dat Technic Cross Block 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Axle)
32068.dat Technic Cross Block 1 x 3 (Axle/None/Pin)
32291.dat Technic Cross Block 2 x 2 (Axle/Twin Pin)
41678.dat Technic Cross Block 2 x 2 Split (Axle/Twin Pin)
42003.dat Technic Cross Block 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Pin)
32557.dat Technic Cross Block 2 x 3 (Pin/Pin/Twin Pin)
44489.dat Technic Cross Block 2 x 2 Bent 90 (Pin/Pin/Pin)
63869.dat Technic Cross Block 3 x 2 (Axle/Triple Pin)
Chris Dee (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee wrote:
> Thank you for all the comments on this (including those that veered off-topic).
> I like the "Cross Block" designation, especially as this is a common theme in
> the LEGO descriptions. It has the added benefit that it is shorter than "Joiner
> Perpendicular", leaving more space for qualification if needed. So I will go
> ahead with:
>
> 6536.dat Technic Cross Block 1 x 2 (Axle/Pin)
> 32184.dat Technic Cross Block 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Axle)
> 32068.dat Technic Cross Block 1 x 3 (Axle/None/Pin)
> 32291.dat Technic Cross Block 2 x 2 (Axle/Twin Pin)
> 41678.dat Technic Cross Block 2 x 2 Split (Axle/Twin Pin)
> 42003.dat Technic Cross Block 1 x 3 (Axle/Pin/Pin)
> 32557.dat Technic Cross Block 2 x 3 (Pin/Pin/Twin Pin)
>
> 44489.dat Technic Cross Block 2 x 2 Bent 90 (Pin/Pin/Pin)
> 63869.dat Technic Cross Block 3 x 2 (Axle/Triple Pin)
>
> Chris Dee (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
Correction:
44489.dat should be
44809.dat Technic Cross Block 2 x 2 Bent 90 (Pin/Pin/Pin)
Chris
|
|
|
