 | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Urp. um yes... but then the proper name of this part is "Pantograph Shoe Holder" if one uses a trainish naming... as what it holds is pantograph shoes (...) and this part would be "Pantograph Shoe" But of course a much better name for this is (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) opaque parts and another for transparent. I've been meaning to add some shortcut/redirection files to LDraw, to handle this situation (ie, I'm going to submit a 6218.DAT that references 6259.DAT). There are some other parts with the same (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Thanks for the support. Except for the sailing ship hulls, I feel it will be better (ie, better for users) to go with the intuitive name. "Boat Bow X x Y x Z", "Boat Stern X x Y x Z".[1] Possibly with a modifier somewhere, to indicate that (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Reaper Assault Mecha
|
|
"Curt" <CommanderCurt@msn.com> wrote in message news:GprynE.KCH@lugnet.com... (...) programs)? Hi Curt - If you can, please pardon my minor brand-building nitpick :-) The proper question would be 'do the parts exist in the _LDraw_ Parts Library?' (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Part 6259 (or should it be 6218 ??) IS NOT A CYLINDER. (URL) agree that it fits into the Cyliner category and agree that 2 of these pieces make a cylinder, but just 1 unit is only a HALF CYLINDER. So, Part 6259 should be renamed. The name I (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
