LDraw (www.ldraw.org) : 1587


CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 1587

Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

Hi y'all! Yes, this is Steve, once again geeking on the parts library organization. :) We've currently got a group of parts labeled 'Cylinder'. See (URL) for a list of the parts. But there's a problem: not all of these parts are actually cylinders. (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Ryan Farrington

Steve Bliss wrote: 8< [snip] (...) I think it is a "well-rounded" idea. It would make the lists easier to search (esp. for newbies). Similarly, Franklin Cain had suggested a year ago reworking the Castle and Space categories. Will that be happening (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) Yes. I'm guessing (based on past experience) that it won't be the next parts update (2002-01), but maybe the one after that (2001-02). But who knows? If we get three part reviewers who decide to work together to change the part names and post (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Jacob Sparre Andersen

(...) Excellent idea. (...) Not bad. What do we do about <part:4032> (Plate 2 x 2 Round)? Is "plate" or "round" most important? I presume that we should stick to the current name and add "round" as an extra category. A similar question concerns (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) This is a good and important point. If the category "round" is to take the same functionality as, say, the "slope" category, it would be more correct to rename existing parts into Round Plate 2 x 2 Round Brick 2 x 2 and so on. After all, slope (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Jacob Sparre Andersen

(...) Good point. I support that change. (...) Jacob (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) I agree totally. A very important point. I'm ambivalent about the resolution. My *first* reaction is that we should leave existing parts mostly alone, unless it is very clear that they should be moved. My second reaction is that I'll go along (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) I think this sounds like a sensible approach! (...) You mean something like 2637 Technic Axle 16 with Axleholes 2739 Technic Axle 6 with Ball Joint Sockets I am a bit ambivalent about this. The rods in question are axle shaped, however they (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Ross Crawford

(...) I agree. Let's hope we can agree on a priority! (...) I thought both these would fit OK into the "liftarm" category, as that's how they'd generally be used. ROSCO (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) 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!) (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Ross Crawford

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty

(...) 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 (22 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty

[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 (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

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 (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Larry Pieniazek

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 (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) I forgot to mention, please take a look at these Parts Tracker entries: (2 URLs) :) (...) Do you have any links to these discussions? Steve (22 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) "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 (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty

(...) "...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 (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) Hmm. I think a parts database, that tracks multiple (hopefully, *all*) names for each part, would be a very good thing. Steve (22 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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? (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) [snip] (...) Do you have the *right* numbers for these elements? Steve (22 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Robert M. Rodinsky

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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 (22 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) :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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Jim Hughes

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts / Beams & bricks —Philippe Hurbain

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 (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts / Beams & bricks —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

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 (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Ryan Farrington

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, (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: "Round" —Franklin W. Cain

(...) Steve, I really, really, *REALLY* want these two put into the category "Container", 'cuz that's exactly what they are. :-/ Thanks, Franklin (22 years ago, 20-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: "Round" —Steve Bliss

(...) I tend to agree with you on this. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Thomas Garrison

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Kevin Salm

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss

(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)