 | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) But 'towball socket' is the LDraw-ish term for that connection. One of the problems with associating these two parts is their end-connection holes are different, and it's hard to tell that from the pictures. (...) That's the problem. And the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I have no reason to believe that this is not more correct than my understanding, so let's go with "Technic Tie-Rod". That is probably the best solution. (...) It's a hard question! Bricks that are "modified" in some way are normally called (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Admittedly, it's a bit early in the morning over here, but I can't understand wether you mean that you want the parts to be categorized after the the type of part, or in what kind of set it appears the first time! *boggle* What about the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
[Apologies for replying to my own post...] (...) A quick check of peeron reveals that set 4215, from 1998, did contain the camel head and the subject element (albeit in blue), and that was the same year as the release of 8462 (also having it in (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I like it too, though I think "Towball socket" is a too-long way to say "ball socket". (...) How to determine if it's TRULY a Technic item though? Personally (and I'm apparently in the minority here), I want my part names to work for me (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: The LDraw Community is what each person makes it
|
|
Hi Robin - "Robin Sayce-Jones" <robin@sayce-jones.co.uk> wrote in message news:Gpn1C5.Moy@lugnet.com... (...) #1 - Don't feel like you're not worthy! :-) (...) Taking a very quick (I gotta run soon) look at your pages, looks awesome! I'd love to (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: The LDraw Community is what each person makes it
|
|
I'd love to help but always feel I'm not worthy. If you take a look at (URL) then you can see as much as I'd like to get involved. I only have experience of some of the available utilities but it seems to be enough. I think what we all suffer from (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) So, does anyone know what the Danish term is? Or the part names? (...) Nod, exactly. And, since we're working in English, with translations or totally different names, it's possibly worse. By 'worse', I mean that I expect that part names in (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) :p Sorry, this is a one-name system. Although, after browsing the parts reference at Rene Hoffmeister's site -- (URL) -- I've been wondering about a multi-language parts registry/database. (...) Nod, yes. (...) Yes, there is. It's 32523, and (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) OK. I generally use 'rod' as a straight synonym for 'bar'. If some other people like 'Technic Rod', then let's go with that. (...) In that case, can we move the 'Brick with pin(s)' parts to Technic Brick? (...) Oooo, cool. :) So it *is* a (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Sorry, I was being too terse. I meant 'technic brick', not just plain 'brick'. Likewise, 'technic beam', not just 'beam'. (...) That's a possibility. Organization-wise, I'd like to split Technic up into two or more categories, just because (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Yes, but it passes the "Is it?" test. This is the test we'd have to use to account for the Technic and Slope categories found in the LDraw parts library. Technic and Slope are both adjectives, as used in part names. We've got parts like (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I think I like the upper version, but I'm not sure. I suppose we can't have both? :-) BTW, we may benefit from using " 1 x 3" rather "3L". This may make it easier to incorporate the L shaped beams. (...) I think there exists a 3 hole full (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I tend to view bar-like elements with a connector socket in each end as a "rod". Hence, "tie-rod" sounds too complicated to me. But I can't claim too much knowledge about English mechanics. I think your suggestion is good! (...) But that's not (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) The term "liftarm" is the official Lego US Consumer Affairs name. It is derived from the official Danish part name. The term has been used widely in Lego advertising, particularly in the names of supplemental or parts packs, particularly in (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
