 | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes: <mostly snipped> I agree pretty much with everything Steve wrote here. As I said before, as a USER I'd rather have a multiattribute shape/connectivity based system rather than "pirate hull" and (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
Sorry this is so long. If you don't want to read the whole, at least scan to the end, and read the final paragraph! (...) Nothing. Following prior standards has to do with using 'towball socket'. Saving 3 characters seems less important to me than (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Now THAT is a good question. My first instinct is a resounding yes. But it turns out that it's never (that I can find) come in a TECHNIC set! :-) (The 2x2 brick with (side) peg has) -- joshua (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I'd like them to be categorized as the part is used, for the most part, rather than with a hyper-technical over-engineered approach. The steering rod is (to me, personally), a steering rod before it's a technic axle with ball sockets. When I (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) What does associating the two parts have to do with using the term "ball socket" over the longer "towball socket"? There's the additional issue here of the two "standards" of ball-socket, the original style (see the steam shovel bucket), and (...) (23 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
