Subject:
|
Re: Fixing the liftarms
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:30:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
21594 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Timothy Gould wrote:
> Hi all (and especially Chris Dee),
>
> I find the inconsistency in the naming of liftarms in LDraw to be quite
> frustrating and was wondering whether or not it would be worth setting a
> standard name class and sticking to it.
>
> Here's a sample list:
>
> Technic beam 11
> Technic beam 4x0.5
> Technic liftarm 1x2 (even though it's also half thick)
> Technic liftarm 1x3 straight
>
> I'd be quite happy to go through the list and rename them to a standard format
> if I knew that it would be useful. I'd prefer to have a good format first
> though.
When I standardized the headers of the certified parts at the PT back in August
2008 I tried to rename them as following:
"1 x 1" are called Beams
example: http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/32278.dat
"1 X 0.5" are called liftarm
example: http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/32017.dat
Be aware that only certified parts apply to this scheme.
My 0.2 euro, w.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Fixing the liftarms
|
| Hi all (and especially Chris Dee), I find the inconsistency in the naming of liftarms in LDraw to be quite frustrating and was wondering whether or not it would be worth setting a standard name class and sticking to it. Here's a sample list: Technic (...) (18 years ago, 20-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
4 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
|
|
|
|
