 | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes: <mostly snipped> I agree pretty much with everything Steve wrote here. As I said before, as a USER I'd rather have a multiattribute shape/connectivity based system rather than "pirate hull" and (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Thanks for the support. Except for the sailing ship hulls, I feel it will be better (ie, better for users) to go with the intuitive name. "Boat Bow X x Y x Z", "Boat Stern X x Y x Z".[1] Possibly with a modifier somewhere, to indicate that (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Urp. um yes... but then the proper name of this part is "Pantograph Shoe Holder" if one uses a trainish naming... as what it holds is pantograph shoes (...) and this part would be "Pantograph Shoe" But of course a much better name for this is (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) I forgot to mention, please take a look at these Parts Tracker entries: (2 URLs) :) (...) Do you have any links to these discussions? Steve (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty
|
| | | | (...) Wrong number, BTW. (...) "Double Curved Handle, Bottom Hinge, 3M", FWIW (...) ad hominem, Lar. Tsk, tsk. It's a subtle version, though. Props for that. (...) Doesn't work in every package. Of course, it doesn't concern me QUITE as much, since (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) "We're in agreement. My bone is with Joshua, an extremely clever fellow in (...) Better? :-) (...) Fix or discard those that don't. Standards evolve and packages need to evolve too. (...) This is a terrible idea. Get the names right instead (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty
|
| | | | | | (...) "...fellow in most every respect, although _my opinion differs very strongly with his_" would be my preference. SURELY you don't see this as objective subject matter? (...) I'm pointing out the argument from the majority position here. I've (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Hmm. I think a parts database, that tracks multiple (hopefully, *all*) names for each part, would be a very good thing. Steve (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Nope, the number is right. Larry (and you?) misunderstood what part I was using as an example. But, the URL is wrong. The right URL is: (URL). (...) Is this your name for 2881, the official name for 2881, or something you made up on the spot? (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Joshua Delahunty
|
| | | | (...) Not what I meant. James had the number wrong. That's not the number for that element. (...) I've never seen an element numbered 2881, James had that one wrong too. But that's my name for that element. It's served me well for the 8+ years I've (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) [snip] (...) Do you have the *right* numbers for these elements? Steve (23 years ago, 14-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
