To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.devOpen lugnet.cad.dev in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / 1703
1702  |  1704
Subject: 
Re: Torso number was Forestman Torso was Voting Page
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev
Date: 
Fri, 14 May 1999 07:32:53 GMT
Viewed: 
671 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 (...) (25 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR