Subject:
|
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Jan 2002 00:14:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
886 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Fredrik Glöckner wrote:
>
> > My personal opinion is that the liftarm category in LDraw is way too
> > wide.
>
> I agree with that.
>
> > I'm not quite sure myself what a "liftarm" actually is in the
> > English language.
>
> 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 (a) it's a literal translation from a Danish term or (b) James
> Jessiman coined the word.
The term "liftarm" is the official Lego US Consumer Affairs name. It is
derived from the official Danish part name. The term has been used widely
in Lego advertising, particularly in the names of supplemental or parts packs,
particularly in the late 1980s or early 1990s
>
> > 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.
>
> That was the way I understood it.
This is exactly its function, but the name, as used by Lego, applies to
only a small set of parts. 2825 Liftarm, 4 x 1 is the prototype of these
elements.
The problem is that over time Lego has created a wide variety of elements
that can serve the same function but are structurally different.
Lego's solution to this problem is to simply name the new part whatever they
wish. This is easy for Lego because they have absolutely no systematic approach
to element names; a name can be a description of the shape or of the function,
or of neither. And unlike LDraw's requirement for unique element names, Lego
has no such requirement, they now have at least 5 different elements officially
named "steering gear"
>
> > But this understanding may very well be wrong. Perhaps the word
> > "liftarm" is simply synonymous with "rod"?
>
> I wouldn't think so.
>
> > 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
>
> No, I don't think that would be the way to go.
>
> > 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.
>
> Agreed, both on the half-width and full-width beams should be something
> other than "liftarm".
>
> > I don't know, however, what this new category should be called.
> > "Beam" should not be used, since Technic Bricks are beams, as well.
>
> That is a problem. But keep reading...
>
> > 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"!
>
> 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".
>
> Steve
Another consideration is to classify and name all parts based on a single
attribute no matter what. My personal opinion is to describe only
shape/geometry (at least in theory, I have yet to put this into practice) since
the function of a given element can vary dramatically depending on context. An
example of this scheme is:
Lego brick (1 height x n x n)
--- Rectangular
--- --- Additive forms
--- --- Subtractive forms
--- Round
--- --- Additive forms
--- --- Subtractive forms
Lego half beam (1/2 height x n x n)
--- Rectangular
--- --- Additive forms
--- --- Subtractive forms
--- Round
--- --- Additive forms
--- --- Subtractive forms
Lego plate (1/3 height x n x n)
--- Rectangular
--- --- Additive forms
--- --- Subtractive forms
--- Round
--- --- Additive forms
--- --- Subtractive forms
etc, etc.
In any event good luck with your classification. In all of the work on my
site I have found parts classification to be one of the most conceptually
difficult tasks, and I only deal with Technic elements. And thanks for your
continued work on the partsref. I dont use LDraw but I find the Partsref
indespensable
--Jim
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
