To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldrawOpen lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 1597
1596  |  1598
Subject: 
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Fri, 4 Jan 2002 09:43:20 GMT
Viewed: 
848 times
  
"Ross Crawford" <rcrawford@csi.com> writes:

I thought both these would fit OK into the "liftarm" category, as
that's how they'd generally be used.


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 hole in the end(s).  That way, the
liftarm can be used to transform a rotating motion into a "lifting"
force.  E.g., a rotating axle with a "liftarm" connected can be used
to lift something.


But this understanding may very well be wrong.  Perhaps the word
"liftarm" is simply synonymous with "rod"?  If so, the parts I suggest
to rename could be called

    2637 Technic Liftarm 16L with Axleholes
    2739 Technic Liftarm  6L with Ball Joint Sockets

or something similar.



But back to the liftarm category.  In my opinion, it is wrong to put
the halfbeams into this category.  The halfbeams are smooth beams with
rounded ends and no studs and with a half stud width.  I think we need
a new category to catch these elements, as well as the fairly new full
width smooth beams with rounded ends.


I don't know, however, what this new category should be called.
"Beam" should not be used, since Technic Bricks are beams, as well.


But if indeed we come up with a new category for these elements, it
would be natural to put the 3x5 full width beam with one 90 degree
bend into it.  And then, it would be natural to fill in with the other
full width smooth bended beams with cross axle holes in the ends, and
finally the half width beams and, liftarms.  Now, some of these
elements are indeed liftarms according to my understanding.  So in the
end, they all end up in the same category anyway!  Hence, perhaps it
is best to retain the current situation after all, and call all the
elements "liftarms"!  These matters are indeed quite difficult.


Well, these were my opinions and thoughts on this matter.  I'd
certainly like to hear what other people think of this.


Fredrik



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts / Beams & bricks
 
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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) 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 (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR