 | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) "...fellow in most every respect, although _my opinion differs very strongly with his_" would be my preference. SURELY you don't see this as objective subject matter? (...) I'm pointing out the argument from the majority position here. I've (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Not what I meant. James had the number wrong. That's not the number for that element. (...) I've never seen an element numbered 2881, James had that one wrong too. But that's my name for that element. It's served me well for the 8+ years I've (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New style of part file 3941 vs. 6143
|
|
(...) No, sorry - the bulk of this research was from (a lot of) miscellanous parts in my spares box, and I cannot be sure of the providence of many of my made up sets, so any info from them would be near worthless. (...) Unless problems with the use (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New style of part file 3941 vs. 6143
|
|
(...) I guess it does! I've got some comments below, but for now, let's stick with the two documented part numbers. If someone wants to create these non-functional variations of the part(s), I'm ok with that. But let's not get into xxxxA, xxxxB, (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New style of part file 3941 vs. 6143
|
|
(...) A brief investigation of my spares reveals a more complex situation. There are variations in three regions of this part 1) The ribs between the inner cylinder and the rim: 1A) no ribs 1B) small rectangular ribs 1C) larger triangular (rocket (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Nope, the number is right. Larry (and you?) misunderstood what part I was using as an example. But, the URL is wrong. The right URL is: (URL). (...) Is this your name for 2881, the official name for 2881, or something you made up on the spot? (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) "We're in agreement. My bone is with Joshua, an extremely clever fellow in (...) Better? :-) (...) Fix or discard those that don't. Standards evolve and packages need to evolve too. (...) This is a terrible idea. Get the names right instead (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | New style of part file
|
|
I've posted three new files on the Parts Tracker, they are at: (3 URLs) These files are all 'shortcuts' - they don't have any code, except a reference to another part file. The reason I submitted these files is because these three parts are all (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Wrong number, BTW. (...) "Double Curved Handle, Bottom Hinge, 3M", FWIW (...) ad hominem, Lar. Tsk, tsk. It's a subtle version, though. Props for that. (...) Doesn't work in every package. Of course, it doesn't concern me QUITE as much, since (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) I forgot to mention, please take a look at these Parts Tracker entries: (2 URLs) :) (...) Do you have any links to these discussions? Steve (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
