Subject:
|
Re: Classic Windows: How many versions? Please respond!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:41:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1731 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Tore Eriksson writes:
> If you look closely at Classic Windows, you'll find that there are
> diffeences in many details. See
> http://home.swipnet.se/simlego/pix/compare3.jpg for the details I have found.
>
> See suggested 27a.dat, 27b.dat, and 27c.dat (recently posted).
>
> The oldest windows I have, have solid studs and solid bottom pins.
> Those a little newer have open studs but still solid bottom pins.
> Then some of them got what I call thin walls.
> Then slotted bottom pins.
> At last, and at least in my collection the most common variant: no holes on
> top and with shorter ledge.
> (There is also a VARIANT of 1x2, 2x1, and 1x1 that I am forced to
> unwillingly mention: So called "windows" without glass. Peep holes would be
> a more proper name for them! Some bag maker are probably to blame for their
> existens. This most obscure variant is *NOT*, I repeat *NOT* the standard
> version of those windows! Even if they happen to be more common in the US(?))
>
> So, how many versions should we include? As it is now, there is at least one
> too little.
> My suggestion is:
> * Solid/hollow studs: Ignore, always use hollow studs
> * Solid/slotted bottom pins: Ignore, always use slotted bottom pins
> * Thin/thick walls: Use thick walls only for the 6-wide windows.
> * Long/short ledge: Too important to neglect. Make two different versions.
> (a) Short ledge, no top holes (wide glass in 646a.dat)
> (b) Long ledge, with top holes (narrow glass in 646b.dat)
> And for the 3 exceptions mentioned above
> (c) Short ledge, no top holes, without glass
>
> 39c01.dat be moved to 39a.dat
> 39.dat be moved to 39c.dat
> 29c01.dat be moved to 29a.dat
> 29.dat be moved to 29c.dat
> 27c01.dat be moved to 27a.dat
> 27.dat be moved to 27c.dat
> 31.dat be moved to 31a.dat
> 7026.dat, 453, 645, 646 be moved to *a.dat
>
> 604.dat, leave as is (ignore hole/no hole)
>
> (b) versions with long ledge are made to all with (a) versions
>
> While moving, we make BFC certified versions with 3d-glasses in color 47.
>
> Please respond now to these suggestions or remain silent. I will not have
> the discussion on this Tracker - that will take *far* too long time.
>
> /Tore
Good idea to keep this complex discussion here. Sorry it's taken me a while to
put my thoughts together.
I think we should model _all_ functional differences, so
* Solid/hollow studs: Dont ignore - hollow studs can receive parts (and we used
this as a justification for splitting 4215)
* Solid/slotted bottom pins: Ignore - slot is not functional so don't model
* Thin/thick walls: Use thick walls only if thin wall are not known to exist
(as per your suggestion of 1x6x2 - but I do have 1x6x3 with thin walls).
* Long/short ledge: Definitely dont ignore (but long ledge seems to be linked
with top holes in the 2+ wide parts)
* Glass/no glass: Dont ignore but handle with xxxc01.dat files (Sorry, I do
agree with Steve on this point)
So we have two variables for the basic part; studs and ledge size. You suggest
that solid studs only exist with one ledge size. Is this definite? I cannot
confirm as I don't have any with solid studs. If so we have three variants for
the coloured part, and I suggest we use the a,b,c suffices consustently across
all windows.
a - solid studs
b - open studs, long ledge
c - open studs, short ledge
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
