Subject:
|
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Jan 2002 08:45:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4012 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> Steve Bliss <partsref@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > 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 think this sounds like a sensible approach!
I agree. Let's hope we can agree on a priority!
> > > 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".
>
>
> 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 are not _functionally_ axles, as you cannot put things onto
> the axles.
>
>
> There are also the new rod parts, which have an "I" shaped profile beam.
> You can find two in black in 6470, and there also exist longer ones
> (11L?). These are not liftarms and are not shaped. I think these would
> be better integrated into a "Technic Rod" category.
I thought both these would fit OK into the "liftarm" category, as that's how
they'd generally be used.
ROSCO
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
