Subject:
|
Re: Wheels and train wheels with metal axles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Dec 2004 21:44:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
648 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> 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.
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 appear until 1998-06,when 479 became a "~Moved to" file. In fact the current
official 7039 is not a simple reference to 479a and 35a, but rather a copy of
479a. I'd prefer to see this corrected.
>
> 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.
and that of the admins. Steve agreed here
<http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=5450> and so do I. However it is a
waste of 3DNs when the _part_ name could be NNNc01.dat, so I'd like to stick
with that unless we actually know the real number (e.g. 7039).
The standard I would like to maintain is that each part that is moulded or
manufactured separately should have its own LDraw number, because in reality we
know that TLC has its own numbers for _some_ component parts.
These component parts which never appear in isolation should be stored in the
PARTS directory, but should have their descriptions prefixed with a "~" to
reduce Parts List bloat.
This level of granularity has two major advantages :
a) expert users can easily construct composite parts with different colour
combinations to the officially released composites, and
b) we reduce the overall number of lines of code in the library (at the expense
of more files) to increase maintainability.
I think the s\ subdirectory should only be used for incomplete parts (such as
decorated parts with missing faces, repeated sections of highly symetrical parts
and patterns which are shared between parts).
>
> 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.
I'd say not. The trainbases look OK to me. I disagree that the wheel-pair should
be a part, since it cannot exist without the trainbase, unless you damage the
trainbase to free the wheel/axle combo. The issued _part_ is a combination of
the base part, four wheels and two axles. I wont go so far as to advise that the
axles need to be separate _parts_ since they can be (and have been) constructed
in the composite part with a single primitive reference. I'm happy for these
also to be NNNc01.dat.
>
> > 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.
I think 7039.dat should just include references to 479a.dat and 35b.dat.
A nd 479c01.dat should be used for the combination of 479a.dat and x269.dat -
the 4-stud wheel with extended axle.
The standard we try to enforce for composite parts is to append cNN to the part
number of the largest part, or one on which its individual number is visible. In
line with this, I agree with using, for example, x242.dat for the spoked wheel
(with a ~ prefixed description) and x242c01.dat for the _part_ with an axle.
Where a wheel was issues with two forms of axle then xNNNc01 and xNNNc02 are
appropriate.
>
> > 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.
Agreed.
>
> > 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.
Well here's hoping that this response does not genetate more upset-ness.
>
> /Tore
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Wheels and train wheels with metal axles
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 8-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
