Subject:
|
Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:46:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
16111 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
| (...) <SNIP> (...) "Peghole" is already used in a few part descriptions in the official library, and there are even primitives named peghole* to support their representation. "Pinhole" is not used in the official library at all. Chris Dee (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
| In (URL) 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: Currently we have: (...) (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
8 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
|
|
|
|
