Subject:
|
Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:52:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
698 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee writes:
<snips>
> 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 moulds for clear vs. opaque parts
> 2) TLC allocating a new part number to a previous part for other reasons we
> cannot guess (poor memory, technical change not visible in the finished part,
> other inventory management problems).
>
> I think you only have to look at a selection of common parts (eg. 2x2 plates)
> through the years to see that there are several generations of mould, because
> there are clear differences in the typeface and position of the "3022" text.
> Clearly TLC do not (did not) allocate a new number each time they make a new
> mould.
>
> Chris
Correct. The actual mould number is probably the composite of the 4/5 digit
number and the X-XX number (usually first appears as 1-01). I would guess that
the X-XX number has to do with the actual mould (and possibly the cavity). The
4/5 digit number is the one that I was referring to (which we have traditionally
called 'part number'). What I am suggesting is to have a higher level identifier
that is related to the shape (so that we would have one unique shape for radar
dish 4 x 4). The individual mould numbers (opaque, transparent, etc) would be
instances of that shape. The .dat could belong to the shape (as a default for
all associated part numbers) or to the individual parts (if there is something
unique about this instance). One example of uniqueness would be 'brick 1x4'
which would have a generic description, but unique varients for each of the
decorated versions (for which, if a unique part number exists, is unknown
outside of TLC).
Maybe I'm making this into a bigger deal than it is, but I've seen various parts
that we have no clue as to which 'part number' should be used to represent it
(be they decorated varients or actual ABS pieces). I'm looking for a way to keep
using the existing part numbers (where known), but still leave us a clean method
to classify those 'unknown parts' as soon as they as observed (even before a
.dat file exists). Something that we can generate as we go, but still reference
that actual 'part number' if/when it is discovered.
Ray
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
