Subject:
|
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:54:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
891 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Fredrik Glöckner wrote:
> Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> writes:
>
> > What do we do about <part:4032> (Plate 2 x 2 Round)? Is
> > "plate" or "round" most important?
>
> This is a good and important point.
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 with what I hear from everyone
else.
Third, "Brick" is fairly large category. So moving some parts out of
brick would be good, from a perspective of balancing out the categories.
> After all, slope bricks are bricks too, but they're still put into the
> slope category. Hence, it would be more consistent to do the same
> with round bricks and plates.
A side note: all slopes are identified as "slope brick" (although some
of them should probably be "slope tile"). A better category for
comparision might be "Hinge", where there are several "hinge plate" and
"hinge brick" parts. :)
> An alternative approach would be to let the new "round" category
> include _only_ "odd" parts that are not also in the brick or plate
> categories. This sounds a bit strange to me, but it would clearly
> impose less changes to parts that already exist.
Another (perhaps similar) approach: establish a priority of categories.
Lay out which categories are 'more important' when a part fits more than
one category.
So it might be that Round has higher priority than Plate, but Wing
overrides Round.
> I would prefer the first approach, to rename _all_ rounded bricks and
> plates into the new category. But at the same time, I am a bit
> unsure, as this will mean rename a bulk of parts. So I am certainly
> not sure if it is a good idea!
Here's a URL I used to compile a list of candidates for the Round
category:
> <http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=round%2A+curve%2A+cone%2A+-baseplate+-roadsign+-window+-panel+-fence+-technic+-rail&qn=40>
(sorry if it wraps). It returns 48 matches (some newer parts might be
missing -- I haven't applied the 2001-02 and 2001-03 updates to
Partsref!).
Any thoughts on this set of parts?
One problem is that part 6039, Cone 2 x 2 x 1&2/3 Octagonal, doesn't
belong in Round. It's alright in Cone, but Cone will cease to exist as
a category if we create Round. I guess we could rename 6039 to "Brick 2
x 2 x 1&2/3 Octagonal Cone".
> While we are discussing the subject of renaming parts, what do you
> think about the suggestion posted here:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=6371
I think it's a good suggestion, and I'm sorry I didn't reply to it when
it was posted. But I would suggest "Technic Axle" be used, instead of
"Technic Rod".
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
56 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
