Subject:
|
Re: Wheels and train wheels with metal axles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:24:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
755 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Niels Karsdorp wrote:
> Many of wheels I've created have hold votes on the part tracker.
> In order to fix these files I need some more information about standards.
The really big problem is that there is no agreement of any standard. This has
been a subject of a "political" issue that I don't think is solved.
My opinion is that James Jessimam from the beginning set the most reasonable
standard in 7039.dat. 7039.dat consist of two subparts, 497a.dat and 35a.dat.
There is absolutely no reason to let the subparts be visible in the parts list
of any modelling software, so their names begin with a ~. Of course.
The ~Axle is not a part. The ~Wheel without an ~axle is not a part. And the
complete Wheel with its axle is a part (NOT a shortcut or assembly but a part)
This is the user's, or builder's, viewpoint. And that was James' view and it is
mine, too. And, as far as I can see, also Steffen's.
Opposed to this is the manufacturer's view, unfortunately in absurdum
implemented today. It says "all details separatly manufactured has its own part
number". This is useless for the average model builder and leads to an overdoze
of irrelevant information in the parts lists. But what about the expert builder,
or the custom freaks? I say don't worry about them. They have enough knowledge
to make their own unofficial hacks.
.
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x242.dat
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x243.dat
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x244.dat
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x245.dat
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x447.dat
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/7039.dat
>
> One of the hold reasons is the use of an axleless version and a complete version
> with axle. Should I include the axle into the main part?
Personally, I would prefer it that way. But then again, I'm not in the ruling
party. Every unnecessary file in the Parts folder is a additional burden to the
file system as well as for the user and should be avoided whenever possible. In
this case, it's very possible.
> For x242, x244, x245 and x447 this is possible, as these wheels were only
> available with one type of axle.
The 35b.dat ~Axle is used by at least two other old style wheels. I don't see
any problem with that. In the same way, rename x243 to x243b and add ~ to its
description.
> Wheel x243 (train wheel spoked with straight hub) is also used in two trainbases
> (x270c01 and 736c01) without the axle.
Now it's getting delicate. I'd say that the wheel-pair with axle is a part since
it's unseparably glued together. That calls for changes to the trainbase
assembly shortcuts.
> So this wheel must have an axleless version and a complete version with axle.
No not really, but I can unwillingly accept that in some cases.
> Wheel 7039 came with both the extended axle (x269) and the normal axle (35b).
> The current 7039 contains the normal axle. How should the file for this wheel
> with the extended axle be called? And should that version be a copy of the
> current 7039 only referring the other axle? Or should there be an axleless
> version that will be used in both complete versions?
"It's easier to just have to edit one file to make an update..." is the weak
argument for making yet another file. This argument grows in strength the more
parts that can be improved by just updating a subpart file. But I can bear the
unnecessary extra file just as long as it won't show up in the parts list with ~
subparts filtered out.
> Another issue is the color of the axle. These axles came in at least two
> different colors (caused by use of different metals, brass and another which
> looks like silverish steel). What colornumber should the axles have?
I think the standard is set to 8, Dark Grey. Again, experts and hackers know how
to customize at will. The trainbase axle is so obviosly chome so no reason to
use 8 there though.
> All axleless versions should have the title starting with a ~ sign. The files
> currently on the parts tracker don't have that. I'll update that together with
> other required fixes for which I need more answers to the above questions.
Great! If only I have read to the end of your post before writing the reply, it
would have spared me from some upset-ness.
/Tore
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Wheels and train wheels with metal axles
|
| (...) Actually, James had some of the same issues that we are trying to deal with now because at first he did not know that 7039 was the official part number for the 4-stud wheel with its axle. In 1998-05 he issued 479.dat and 479a.dat. 7039 did not (...) (20 years ago, 8-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Wheels and train wheels with metal axles
|
| Many of wheels I've created have hold votes on the part tracker. In order to fix these files I need some more information about standards. (URL) of the hold reasons is the use of an axleless version and a complete version with axle. Should I include (...) (20 years ago, 7-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
