Subject:
|
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:31:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1206 times
|
| |
|
|
Sorry this is so long. If you don't want to read the whole, at least
scan to the end, and read the final paragraph!
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> >
> > > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> > > > Steve Bliss <partsref@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > 2637.DAT Technic Tie-Rod 16L with Holes
> > > > > 2739.DAT Technic Tie-Rod 6L Steering with Towball Sockets
> > >
> > > I like it too, though I think "Towball socket" is a too-long way to
> > > say "ball socket".
> >
> > But 'towball socket' is the LDraw-ish term for that connection. One of
> > the problems with associating these two parts is their end-connection
> > holes are different, and it's hard to tell that from the pictures.
>
> What does associating the two parts have to do with using the term
> "ball socket" over the longer "towball socket"?
Nothing. Following prior standards has to do with using 'towball
socket'. Saving 3 characters seems less important to me than using the
same term for the same thing.
> There's the additional issue here of the two "standards" of ball-socket,
> the original style (see the steam shovel bucket), and the TECHNIC standard.
Maybe I'm thick -- I'm not following you. Are you saying that part 2739
(steering rod) doesn't fit part 4089 (bucket)? What about these parts
<http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=towball>? Are they all
intercompatible?
> > > How to determine if it's TRULY a Technic item though?
> >
> > That's the problem. And the answer/solution depends on your definition
> > of what it means to be "truly a Technic" piece. When I use Technic as
> > an adjective, I usually mean anything that has Technic-style connections
> > - the peg or cross-axle holes. For other people, Technic parts are
> > those parts that appear in Technic sets. For others, Technic parts are
> > the parts 'produced' by the Technic design group.
>
> It was a rhetorical question, Steve. :-P
Maybe it's rhetorical to you. I gave three valid definitions. We can't
really proceed with answering your question ("How to determine if it's
TRULY a Technic item though?") until we agree on a definition. As you
mention in another message, a part that your *intuition* tells you is a
Technic part, turns out to never have appeared in a Technic set. So
that part fits one of my given definitions, but fails another (probably
both of the others).
> Thanks for taking the energy to bolster my point so eloquently.
You're welcome. :) I don't think I did bolster your point, though.
> > > Personally (and I'm apparently in the minority here), I want my part
> > > names to work for me intuitively, and if I have to shift mindsets
> > > "Hmm, let's see, I think this is something they'd call Technic, so
> > > let me start there" rather than go with with it was initially
> > > (I'm speaking more of the steering link than anything else), it's
> > > a lot easier to remember where in the list it might be.
> >
> > But everyone's intuition is different. If I decided to reorganize the
> > LDraw library by the way I think of parts, there would be a cyber-riot.
> > That's the reason I never mentioned the idea of putting bricks-with-pins
> > in the Technic group before. I figured it's my peculiarity, and most
> > people sort differently.
>
> I'm not talking about "my way is best", "his way is best", I'm talking
> about using terms that tell what the thing pretty much _is_ (steering
> throw arm) over what it looks like "TECHNIC Axle, 6L, End Ball Sockets,
> Slight Caps to Prevent Axle Penetration in Sockets, Nice Sheen when viewed
> under UV number 67, etc."
You're idea of "what the thing pretty much is", isn't necessarily
universal.
Example: I don't have any Technic sets, never really looked at them,
whatever. But I do have the Time Cruisers Flying Time Vessel (6493).
Why would I go looking for part 2739 as a "steering throw arm"? Why not
"wheel-to-wing link"? Why is "steering throw arm" more *right*?
I think it's better to *try* to stick to names that can be derived by
looking at the part, assuming as little as possible about context.
> The best example I can come up with (just popped into my head last night)...
>
> I challenge someone to come up with a technical description of a given item,
> that's very detailed, has lots of features, and is pretty tough to describe
> in most ways I can think of, and make it AS intuitive or MORE intuitive than
> what I'll probably FOREVER think of as its best description: "Roborider Head"
> (or, for that matter, "Destroyer Droid Foot".
Been there, done that, gave up on it. They're all "Technic Connector
Block" for now, unless/until we come up with something better.
But you're proving my point. You wrote "what *I'll* ... think of".
That name is what works for you. It doesn't necessarily work for
everybody.
> While I've pointed out the folly of using either term (which is more
> intuitive to the most people?) but IMHO, EITHER is better than just about
> any engineering description that can be come up with, considering all the
> features of this part. And I say that as a very strongly geeked-out
> engineer.
In this case (Throwbot parts), I'd agree with you. But 10 years from
now, when the original sets are a dim memory, people are going to be
looking at these things and going "What's up with the Destroyer Droid
Foot? Where'd *that* name come from?"
But here's an example of a usage-based name that's un-useful: "Train
Catenary Holder". People have asked time and time again where to find
this part, when they're modeling their space robots, or dragons, or Town
creation.
Another: "Lever Control".
The bottom line, IMO, is that there are no perfect part names,
especially not in 64 characters each,[1] to appeal to people around the
world. Some names are better than others, some are worse. We do the
best we can. When we find something better, we go with it.
Steve
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
