Subject:
|
Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 21:47:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1649 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee wrote:
>
> > > > I think we should have a dat file for each number, so that if you read the
> > > > part number from the part it is obvious whether or not a .dat file exists).
> > > > One just needs to be a type 1 command to the other file.
>
> Right. I'd rather have one file be a standard part file, and the other be
> a "shortcut" type file, meaning that the part name would be prepended with
> an underscore.
>
> I think we should *not* declare either the opaque or the transparent
> numbers to be "standard". I think we should instead just indicate, via a
> comment in the file, that the number was found on trans or opaque parts.
> My reasoning is that we might have either the transparent number or the
> opaque number first, and we shouldn't have to use a 3-digit number for the
> base-part-file, just because the known number is the wrong type.
>
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Ray Sanders writes:
> > > Heres another data point for the list...
> > >
> > > 'Hinge Panel 2 x 4 x 3 & 1/3' which partsref lists as 2582, a trans-green
> > > piece has 6139 as the mould number. Oddly, a light-grey part (from Gungan
> > > Sub) has no visible mould number on it.
>
> A similar part is the 4x4 radar dish. Some of the Explorien sets had 4x4
> dishes in multiple transparent colors. In one set, some of the dishes are
> 30065, and others are 3960. But the new Star Wars TIE Fighter set has a
> light gray 4x4 dish with *no* number.
>
> > > Another difference between these parts, the trans-green piece (from 6180, • p/n
> > > 6139) has a smooth/gloss surface on the 45-deg angle, while the light-grey
> > > piece (from 7161, assumed to be p/n 2582) has a matte finish on the 45-deg • angle.
>
> (the lt-gray piece is probably *not* 2582, but that's a guess)
>
> > So, IMHO this makes them different parts, although at present the DAT file
> > language does not have the capability to define textured surfaces.
>
> Right. They *should* both be recorded. For now, maybe as a shortcut file,
> but eventually with the mythical 0 TEXTURE meta-statement in the
> matte-surface version.
>
> > But, if we're making a catalog, 2507 - Windscreen 10 x 4 x 2 & 1/3 Canopy • is
> > 30058 in clear - both parts found in set 6155.
>
> Hmmm, interesting. The 7191 UCS X-Wing has one of these in light gray.
> It's also number 30058.
>
> Maybe the lack of connections on this part (no studs, no enclosed
> anti-studs, the only hard connections are finger-hinges) that it has low
> tolerances that allow TLC to use a single mold?
>
> The 2507/30058 numbers (and a number of other 4-digit/5-digit duplications)
> are probably due to TLC switching part numbering schemes, and later having
> to create a new mold to replace worn-out molds.
>
> If we want to start tracking when numbers are found on opaque or
> transparent pieces, let's be careful about jumping to conclusions. Unless
> we find the same number on both trans and opaque pieces, we can't say
> anything *for certain* about the numbers and how LEGO uses them.
>
> Steve
Good analysis, Steve - I agree wholeheartedly - Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
| (...) Right. I'd rather have one file be a standard part file, and the other be a "shortcut" type file, meaning that the part name would be prepended with an underscore. I think we should *not* declare either the opaque or the transparent numbers to (...) (26 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
