Subject:
|
Re: Tyre (tire) nomenclature
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:31:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2764 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
> Comments, please.
I think standardization is a great idea.
I'd like to see this discussion reach other "keepers of lego part names", at
least for feedback. I don't expect that a consensus would be reached.
For the units, I think millimeters would be better than LDU. It would make the
names more intuitive for people who do not use LDraw itself. Since the LDraw
part names are used on Peeron (and probably elsewhere), using an LDraw-centric
measurement unit makes little sense.
Unless I've missed something, we've never had a part title which included LDU.
I believe we've only measured in studs, brick-heights, and millimeters.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Tyre (tire) nomenclature
|
| (...) (ahem) That might work better with crossposting to, say, lugnet.parts or lugnet.cad.dat.parts, instead of hiding the discussion in .cad. . . (...) To clarify: that includes "local" units, i.e., stud and brick height measurements are relative (...) (19 years ago, 30-Apr-06, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Tyre (tire) nomenclature
|
| Mike Heidemann and others make a good point here (URL) about qualifying the LDraw descriptions for tyres. Current commercial nomenclature follows an ISO standard (see for example (URL)) typically using Width"/"AspectRatio"...mDiameter, where (...) (19 years ago, 30-Apr-06, to lugnet.cad)
|
7 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
|
|
|
|
