Subject:
|
Re: Obscure ldraw descriptions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 May 2000 07:09:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
889 times
|
| |
|
|
"Jonathan Gevaryahu" <Jgevaryahu(remove)@hotmail.com> writes:
> we have the "technic pin with friction", 4459.dat
>
> 'with friction'? it should be called a "technic friction peg", or "technic
> friction pin"
The point of having the name "Technic Pin with Friction" (not "technic
pin with friction" as you refered to) is to make sure that the part
falls in the same category as the part "Technic Pin". This is also
why the names of the Technic chain links appear odd:
Technic Link Chain
Technic Link Tread
Because Link comes before Chain/Tread, both parts sort nicely under
each other.
> 50.dat has a good description, "technic friction peg with towball",
> and also disrupts the "pin" name continuity.
Good point. 50.DAT should have the name:
Technic Pin with Friction and Towball
to make sure it fits in with 3673.DAT, 4459.DAT et al.
> by the way, there is no ldraw difference between 3673.dat "technic pin" and
> 4459.dat "technic pin with friction"
Correct.
But we still have two different parts so that authors can
differentiate between them in models. If either of them do get
updated some time in the future, we will benefit from that.
> although the actual pieces are very slightly different, as one
> (4459) has small bumps near the center ring to increase
> friction. these should be added.
If you want to add these bumps, I'm sure the correction will be
included in the official update, if done properly. In the same time,
the pins should be updated to have the locking "lips" on the ends, as
seen on the real parts.
> 424.dat is "technic handle" the definition of a handle is a bar or
> rod which can be gripped, which is not what this is. (see part
> 2432 for the correct use of "handle", although this part [2432] has
> an obscure description itself) therefore, it should be called
> either "technic knob" or "technic rotatable peg cover" , or
> something like that. (I spent over an hour trying to find this one
> part!)
Yes, this part has a somewhat obscure name. But I don't think
"technic knob" is any better, and it also has the wrong
capitalization. This part is normally used as a handle on a crank to
be turned (see the models 8460, 8235), so I think the current name is
fair enough. At least it matches the function of the part.
technic rotatable peg cover" is in my opinion even more obscure.
> likewise, 6558 "technic pin long with friction" should be "technic
> long friction peg/pin" or something of the sort. same with 4274,
> the "technic pin 1/2" should be "technic 1/2 peg/pin" , 32202
> "technic pin 3/4" should be "technic 3/4 peg/pin", and 32054
> "technic pin long with stop bush" should likewise be called
> "technic long (friction?) peg/pin with stop bush"
No, all these are bad because they break up the categories in the
LDraw parts library. See my earlier comment on the 4459.DAT.
> 75535 has a different problem. this part has several uses, although
> its name implies it's main use is "technic pin joiner round". a
> much better name is what technica uses: "technic axle sleeve",
> which implies it's main purpose.
I use this part mainly as a pin joiner, not as an axle sleeve, so I
prefer the original name. Perhaps other people use it mainly as an
axle sleeve, but I cannot speak for those.
Note that this part has an internal structure which will hold the
"lips" of the pins into place when stuck into it, so it is
definitively designed to be a pin joiner. If it was only designed to
be an axle sleeve, it wouldn't need this internal structure, nor would
it need the recessed rings on either ends.
> 4070.dat, the "brick 1x1 with headlight" is obscure also. it should
> be "brick 1x1 with stud on front"
A better name could be:
Brick 1 x 1 with Recessed Side-Stud
(Note the spaces and the capitalization.)
But the original name matches one common use for the part, so it's ok
by me.
> the overall solution to this problem would be to rename 50.dat to
> "Technic pin with towball", and re-organize the words in the other
> parts
No, I strongly disagree with this, as said above.
> but i personally prefer "peg" over "pin" for technic parts.
"Pin" is what we generally use in LDraw (and it probably originates
from Jessiman), so we should stick to that.
Fredrik
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Obscure ldraw descriptions
|
| i've noticed that a few ldraw pieces have extremely drawn-out descriptions. for instance: we have the "technic pin with friction", 4459.dat 'with friction'? it should be called a "technic friction peg", or "technic friction pin" 50.dat has a good (...) (24 years ago, 28-May-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
