 | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I agree. Let's hope we can agree on a priority! (...) I thought both these would fit OK into the "liftarm" category, as that's how they'd generally be used. ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I think this sounds like a sensible approach! (...) You mean something like 2637 Technic Axle 16 with Axleholes 2739 Technic Axle 6 with Ball Joint Sockets I am a bit ambivalent about this. The rods in question are axle shaped, however they (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I agree totally. A very important point. I'm ambivalent about the resolution. My *first* reaction is that we should leave existing parts mostly alone, unless it is very clear that they should be moved. My second reaction is that I'll go along (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Good point. I support that change. (...) Jacob (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) This is a good and important point. If the category "round" is to take the same functionality as, say, the "slope" category, it would be more correct to rename existing parts into Round Plate 2 x 2 Round Brick 2 x 2 and so on. After all, slope (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
