 | | 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)
|
