 | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) It sounds like a good idea, although it fails the "is a" test. That is, if I look at a piece in my hand, I might think "It is a brick" "It is a slope" "It is a hinge" "It is a plate". I would not is "It is a round" I think the previous (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I'd have no hassle calling them bricks, but they need to be called "brick with holes" or "brick, technic" or "technic brick" to distinguish them from hole-less bricks. Should it be a separate category? I lean towards yes, because there's quite (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Thank you for bringing this to my attention. In the cause of accurate part identification, part 3836 is being renamed to Brick 3/4 x 1 & 1/2 x 1/2 Corrugated with Bar 4L at 30 Degree Angle ;) Steve (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Well put. Describe parts by their geometry and connectivity configuration, not by the theme they came from or the type of use they were first put to. ONLY when doing so is terribly unweildly (sp!) would I break from that. Thus: not "rod 5l (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Thanks for clearing this up, Joshua. (...) How about the other suggestions made by Fredrik and me? ('... and myself'? I never was good at grammar) (...) What about the full-width beams with cross-axle holes in the ends? Are those liftarms or (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Yes, they are bricks, but they are commonly called 'beams'. (...) Good point. I don't see the open center bricks being called beams. (...) If that was the only anomolous part, I'd be willing to label it a beam. I yield to your superior counter (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) IMHO we should try to describe parts as genericly (sp?) as possible regardless of the obvious or how LEGO has used it in any particular set(s). There's always some imaginative builder who can use a part in a way nobody thought of before. Let's (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) It comes from this: (URL) from the 1x4 and 1x3 versions, the term expanded. I've been using the term almost as long as James did, if not longer, because of those set names. It IS a term that came from TLG (TLC), but not necessarily from the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts / Beams & bricks
|
|
(...) This is very interesting! In the light of this information, I would suggest that the non-liftarms in the liftarm part category get renamed to "beam", "beam angular/angled" and "halfbeam", respectively. The parts that are liftarms can still be (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts / Beams & bricks
|
|
My two euro-cents... In Ultimate Builder set (3800), Lego provides an inventory with names... might be a source of inspiration ? - Technic bricks with holes are refered as "Technic bricks" - smooth bricks as "Beams", angled ones as "Technic angular (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
