 | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Great, I was mostly just testing the grounds. I wouldn't actually vote for a solution like this. (...) While this idea would unify many elements, I don't think it's a good one. After all, the technic bricks with holes or axleholes (or pins!) (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
I think the parts that go in the Round category should be more for just locating things that you would first think of as round, such as dishes and cones. For example, pieces like these (...) I would not first think of as round. Regarding your list, (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
I've put together a list of possible candidates for the new Round category, and how I think they should sort out. I've included three groups of parts: 'Put in Round', 'Not Sure' and 'Probably Not', to match how I feel about them. I excluded parts I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I agree with that. (...) After thorough research (I googled 'liftarm', and found mostly legofan sites), I've come to the conclusion that 'liftarm' was made up by somebody, and is only used to describe Lego elements. I'm guessing that either (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) My personal opinion is that the liftarm category in LDraw is way too wide. I'm not quite sure myself what a "liftarm" actually is in the English language. But my understanding from LEGO is that a liftarm is a rod or a beam with a cross axle (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
