Subject:
|
Re: Hook Coupling 737c01.dat and 444.dat train wheel.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:16:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5417 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Niels Karsdorp wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> > > Hi all, [snip]
> > > hopefully be added
> > > to parts tracker soon:
> > >
> > > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=105523
> >
> > Excelent work, but most of these parts are already on the parts tracker.
> > For the hooks I only found two versions, but I haven't yet finished the
> > curved end.
>
> Hello Niels,
>
> > http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x509.dat
>
> Great! I wasn't aware of this one so far and would have done it myself soon.
>
> > http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x508.dat
>
> So we did double work here: I had mine drawn in late october but the upload at
> ldraw failed. Then I had a three weeks vacation without online access. Now I
> uploaded them at brickshelf to publish them. :-(
>
> > http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x507.dat
>
> That would have saved me some hours of work, if I had known about your work on
> these (even if I think mine are more accurately done)....
>
> > http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/x447.dat
>
> At least in this case I have been a few weeks faster. ;-))
> I had a close look at your file and I am not sure if yours or mine is the better
> - they nearly look identical. Kudos to all your great work on "new" old parts!
>
> Any chances we will see the oldest type of batterybox soon?
> http://www.fgltc.org/bwoabs/9v_12v/9v_12v.phtml#100
>
> And then the electronic units of 118 and 138?
> http://www.fgltc.org/bwoabs/9v_12v/9v_12v.phtml#139
>
> And then I have a question about naming: why do you name the pieces totally
> contrary to peeron? I would not have found your parts by myself, because I would
> have looked after the peeron numbers. Is there any system in your
> x???-numbering?
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ben
There is a logic to Niels' xNNN numbers and although this has been explained
several times before, it probably deserves repeating.
The LDraw convention for part numbers (initiated by James Jessiman) is to use
3-digit part numbers where the "official" number is not known.
During development, and certification prior to release into the official
library
these parts are prefixed with an "x" - so x507.dat on the Parts Tracker will be
released as 507.dat unless its true number is identified.
Independently, peeron started using xNNN numbers for the parts it needed to add
to its reference library, starting with x1 and now over x1200.
So there is no linkage between a peeron xNNN number and a LDraw xNNN number.
Indeed in many cases an already allocated peeron xNNN number cannot be used for
LDraw because the equivalent NNN number is already in the official library.
For prolific authors, like Niels, the LDraw parts admins (Steve Bliss and
myself) allocate batches of available xNNN numbers to avoid unnecessary
interaction for each part submission.
When we come close to running out of 3-digit numbers, Steve and I will decide a
new policy. If the confusion between LDraw xNNN.dat (NNN.dat) numbers and
peeron
xN, xNN, xNNN and xNNNN numbers is too great, we might need to develop that
policy sooner.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
13 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
|
|
|
|
