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 / 1610
1609  |  1611
Subject: 
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:47:27 GMT
Viewed: 
1131 times
  
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Fredrik Glöckner wrote:

Steve Bliss <partsref@yahoo.com> writes:

In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Fredrik Glöckner wrote:

I'm with you all the way here.  But let me take it one step further:
as you noted, "beam" is a common term for Technic bricks.  So, this
new category could also include the Technic brick parts.  Then, all
technic bricks, liftarms, and half- and full-width smooth beams would
be in one place, with a nice generic label of "Beam".

While this idea would unify many elements, I don't think it's a good
one.  After all, the technic bricks with holes or axleholes (or pins!)
are still bricks.

Yes, they are bricks, but they are commonly called 'beams'.

I'd have no hassle calling them bricks, but they need to be called "brick
with holes" or "brick, technic" or "technic brick" to distinguish them from
hole-less bricks. Should it be a separate category? I lean towards yes,
because there's quite a few of them (and would include open centre bricks
below), but I could be swayed either way.

And to make things even more difficult, there are
many hybrid elements, which cannot easily be categorized as bricks or
beams.  For example the new rectangular/quadratic elements introduced
lately.  I would say that a "beam" is mostly a straight or partwise
straight element.  Could a 4x4 brick with a 2x2 hole in the centre cut
out be called a beam?  Even if it does have some technic holes along the
sides?

Good point.  I don't see the open center bricks being called beams.

Agreed.

Or what about a 1x1 brick with one single hole and one stud?
That can't be a beam, can it?

If that was the only anomolous part, I'd be willing to label it a beam.

I yield to your superior counter examples! ;)  Forget I mentioned a "Technic
Beam" category.

I think we need one category for studded technic elements ("technic
bricks, technic plates") and one for the non-studded elements.

I don't think that would work out -- I can't see the logic in putting bricks and
plates into a single category, separate from other Technic elements.  Even
calling it "Studded Elements" wouldn't be accurate, unless we included other
studded parts, like gearboxes.

The studless beams wouldn't really fit in the "brick" category I dont think.
Maybe *these* could be called beams? Or does the description need to make it
obvious there's no studs?

The name
"liftarm" is a bit bad, as it doesn't fully describe all the non-studded
elements.  However, until we can come up with a better name, I think the
current categories are quite good.

After going through all this, I'm tending to agree.

What about the original question, then?  Do we want

   2637 Technic Axle 16 with Axleholes
   2739 Technic Axle  6 with Ball Joint Sockets

or

   2637 Technic Rod 16L
   2739 Technic Rod  6L Steering

I'm not keen on 'rod', that sounds like a mechanism for pushing.  These parts
are *generally* better for tension than compression.

Maybe this is an Americanization, but how about 'tie-rod'?  That is (basically)
a synonym for 'link', and includes the word 'rod'.  And also connotes the usage
in steering assemblies, which 2739 was initially used for.

So how about "link"?
Are there enough to make a link category? (I'm thinking no, but just
throwing around the ideas...)

ie
2637.DAT      Link  16L with Holes
2739.DAT      Link  6L Steering with Towball Sockets

or

2637.DAT      Technic Link  16L with Holes
2739.DAT      Technic Link  6L Steering with Towball Sockets

How about:

2637.DAT      Technic Tie-Rod 16L with Holes
2739.DAT      Technic Tie-Rod  6L Steering with Towball Sockets

Another problem is the i-beam parts come from Freestyle, not Technic...

ROSCO



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) Sorry, I was being too terse. I meant 'technic brick', not just plain 'brick'. Likewise, 'technic beam', not just 'beam'. (...) That's a possibility. Organization-wise, I'd like to split Technic up into two or more categories, just because (...) (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
 
(...) Yes, they are bricks, but they are commonly called 'beams'. (...) Good point. I don't see the open center bricks being called beams. (...) If that was the only anomolous part, I'd be willing to label it a beam. I yield to your superior counter (...) (23 years ago, 7-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