Subject:
|
Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Mar 2001 23:26:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
615 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
<snippage>
> 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
All along we have been using these numbers as 'part numbers', when actually
they appear to be a mould number. What we are finding here is that there are 1-n
mould numbers for each 'part shape'. In each of these examples, the part/piece
appears to have identical shape, but with different (or no) mould number.
Perhaps a shape identifier is what is needed, something superior to the present
part (or mould) number.
The shape idetifier could be one of the previously known numbers, so long as we
can correlate the related numbers. Having a shape identifier would relieve us of
not having to know the mould number when an obviously new piece appears, and not
knowing what number to call it.
Ray
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
| (...) 1-n (...) present (...) we (...) of (...) not (...) In the main, I think they really are part numbers, considering the total number of parts there are very few exceptions, which I think can be explained by 1) some technical need for separate (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
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 (...) (24 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
