Subject:
|
Re: Torso number was Forestman Torso was Voting Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 May 1999 13:52:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
776 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 1999 08:12:13 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
> And on another note, it has come to my attention that 9326 is NOT the torso
> number. I really hate to say this, but we need to move the torsos out of that
> number to a 3-digit number.
>
> The good news is that we don't know for sure what 9326 is exactly, so we can
> have "~moved to" files for all of them. At least until 9326 becomes known and
> made - which may be quite a long time.
> But we do need to move them, as 9326 is known to be wrong. 9xxx series numbers
> were basically a precursor to the current 8xxxx series numbers. Numbers which
> refer to a composite structure, not a single piece. In this case, torsos
> *with* arms - not just armless torsos.
>
> So you can see the future conflict, and why we should do it now, as the problem
> only gets worse as time goes by.
So waittaminut. I read you writing that 9326 *was* a number for the
composite torso-with-arms-and-hands, but is not any longer used for that
purpose. The 9xxx numbers were an earlier composite range. New parts are
made with 5-digit numbers. So where's the 'future conflict'? What part is
going to come along and slurp up 9326? Is this really a move worth making?
> And since the torsos are already going through a mass structural change, it
> would be good idea to do it now.
>
> Any preferences to which 3-digit number to use? 932 is open. Or 999. Heck, a
> pretty wide open field, in fact.
The 'minifig 3-digit part range' currently includes:
970.DAT Minifig Hips
971.DAT Minifig Leg Right
972.DAT Minifig Leg Left
975.DAT Minifig Arm Right
976.DAT Minifig Arm Left
977.DAT Minifig Hand
979.DAT Minifig (Complete Figure Shortcut)
980.DAT Minifig (Complete Figure Shortcut, Sitting)
So 973 974 978 or 981 would be the next open numbers. I'm not sure why we
skipped 973, 974 and 978 when we laid out these numbers...
Steve
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Torso number was Forestman Torso was Voting Page
|
| (...) that (...) and (...) numbers (...) which (...) problem (...) a (...) If we must make this move, let's use up the gaps - I suggest 974 - as close to the arms as the hip piece is to the legs - but I guess it makes little difference. This would (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Torso number was Forestman Torso was Voting Page
|
| (...) It *was*. But that also means that it *IS*. There almost certainly is a composite torso out there with the number 9326 (ask Joshua). Just because TLG revised the numbering system to use 5 digits does not change the history or existence of past (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Torso number was Forestman Torso was Voting Page
|
| (...) I just did a check on the numbers availability. According to my list, at some point in time 973, 974, & 978 have been used. At least they are not included in my list of 'free' numbers. But they are not in any current usage, and they they are (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Torso number was Forestman Torso was Voting Page
|
| (...) Chris, you seem to by the "torso guy" around here, so if you have a good plan for those pieces, then go for it. And on another note, it has come to my attention that 9326 is NOT the torso number. I really hate to say this, but we need to move (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
15 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
|
|
|
|
