 | | Re: Naming of parts —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | (...) In general, a wedge is a 'clipped' brick and a wing is a 'clipped' plate. I don't see any exception to this rule in the official library but if an exception exists on the PT then those part should be commented upon. -Orion (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Naming of parts —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | | (...) The following official parts do not follow this rule: 4859 32059 2401 2450 2419 30503 6106 (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Naming of parts —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | (...) This one should be Wing 3 x 4 (...) These ones are plates with one corner clipped, I think the 'Without Corner' label is better than Wing. I'd like to add these ones to the list: 2621 2625 I had renamed 2625 while it was on the PT for BFC (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Naming of parts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) If LEGO were to produce a rectangular plate, say a 4x8, with a missing corner, what would be a good way to describe it? The part could easily have a mirror-image part, so it wouldn't be enough to say "Plate 4 x 8 without corner," since that (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Naming of parts —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | (...) Then you'd just use "Plate 4 x 8 Without Corner Left" and "Plate 4 x 8 Without Corner Right" -Orion (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Naming of parts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Doh! I posted without reviewing the current conventions. I suppose I could have inferred that the correct orientation puts the narrow (or corner-less) edge toward the front along the long axis of the part? Thanks for the quick answer, though! (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Naming of parts —Bob Rodinsky
|
| | | | (...) Another point to consider in differentiating between a wedge and a wing. IMHO a wing is not symmetrical and has a matching counterpart (left & right) and would be inherently thin. I cant imagine building a plane model with a wing as thick as a (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Naming of parts —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | (...) By this metric, (URL) not a wing. That's reasonable. If 2413 were a wing, then so would (URL) they are the same shape, essentially. (...) I agree. There are, however, times when that is not possible---for example, (URL) undoubtedly similar (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Naming of parts —Bob Rodinsky
|
| | | | (...) Perhaps the above mentioned (and other similar) parts would best be called "wedge plates". Wedge due to the shape and plate due to the thickness. There is such a variety of shapes and shapes there will always be exceptions to whatever (...) (21 years ago, 17-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
