Subject:
|
Re: Torso number was Forestman Torso was Voting Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 07:32:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
745 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 1999 13:52:37 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> 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?
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 numbers.
If Joshua or Martyn divine exactly what 9326 is, then it would most probably be
added as a piece in the underscore category. There is the conflict.
It is out there, waiting. The conflict is real, just not yet apparent.
> > 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
In that range, I would prefer 973 or 974 as they are between legs and arms.
My suggestion of 932 was just to drop the 6 from the original number. A sort
of pseudo-mnemonic from the original number.
-- Terry K --
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Torso number was Forestman Torso was Voting Page
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
