Subject:
|
Re: Fixing the liftarms
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:23:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
21224 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.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Tim
We are aware of this and do have a plan to rectify it. Steve and I went through
this a while ago, with a view to distinguishing between beams and lift-arms and
consistently naming the beams.
I recall our thinking was that "liftarm" would become a qualifier for beams that
included a technic axle hole at one end, and that narrow beams would include a
thickness designation (0.5). Parts like
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?s=32523
cannot really function as a liftarm, hence the current Parts Tracker version is
OK as it stands.
But http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/6632.dat is now OK.
I'll send the the list by PM, and we can discuss offline.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
