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 / 1607
1606  |  1608
Subject: 
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 19:54:29 GMT
Viewed: 
1019 times
  
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Joshua Delahunty wrote:

[The term 'liftarm'] comes from this:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/?q=liftarm

Starting from the 1x4 and 1x3 versions, the term expanded.

Thanks for clearing this up, Joshua.

I've long given up on arguing for any of this too strongly,
but 2739 is a steering throw-rod, no doubt about it.  To move
it into liftarm or axle status is not the way to go, IMHO.

How about the other suggestions made by Fredrik and me? ('... and myself'?  I
never was good at grammar)

Agreed, both on the half-width and full-width beams should be something
other than "liftarm".

What about the full-width beams with cross-axle holes in the ends?  Are those
liftarms or 'something other'?

The problem was the third element in the list of parts packs I
mentioned: a 1x3 rounded "half beam".  TLG started it.

TLC calls 6632 a 'half beam', not a 'liftarm'?  This really degrades the value
of TLC's names, IMO.  Since we don't know all the names used by TLC, we can only
infer all the names based on the ones we do know.

The other problem is that 'beams' and 'liftarms' are very similar, differing
only by the *type* of hole(s) they carry.[1]  IMO, this type of difference calls
for a "with XXXXXX" specification, not a separation by category.

More like:

Beam 3L
Beam 3L Liftarm

or

Beam 3L
Beam 3L with Axle Holes

than:

Beam 3L
Liftarm 3L

(note: I don't know of a 'beam 3L' currently, just the halfbeam/liftarm 6632)

OTOH, it's odd to label the non-axle-holed (half)beams as "liftarms", when they
can't be directly used as leverage devices.

Steve
--
Steve
1) Actually, they differ by the names given to them by TLC, but I'm trying to
work out a logical/predictive naming system, not just record the actual names.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-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