 | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) Good point. I support that change. (...) Jacob (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
