Subject:
|
Re: Part search
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.mlcad
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:50:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7790 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.mlcad, Ross Crawford wrote:
> Well I've found it helpful on may occasions, just not usually when I'm doing
> a cold search for a part.
I still keep looking for the 6x7 Boat bow plate in the Plates section, then the
Other/W(edges/ings) section, and then finally remember that it's classified as a
Boat part (I've done this at least twice since actually finding it in the parts
tree to begin with). I'm getting really tempted to start tweaking my copies of
the part files to force certain pieces to be relocated in the part tree.
> Besides, I was just pointing out that "since this method only allows you to
> search by part number" was incorrect.
Yeah, I guess you got me there. Stupid technicalities... ;P
> Note also that the part number list HAS to be alphabetical, as part numbers
> can contain alpha characters.
Oh, I understand that completely, but it does make scrolling through the list
for a specific part number a little weird.
> However if you know the part number it doesnt make any difference.
> Just type in the number and it will scroll the list to your part.
I've noticed that this setup resets after a fairly short period, so if you can't
type it in without pauses, you might bounce over to a completely unrelated
section of the list.
> I think those are hangovers from past days, before patterened part numbering
> was worked out. Maybe the best solution would be to fix the descriptions
> (and part numbers). But that's another issue.
There seem to be a number of odd little idiosynchracies in the older part files.
A few months ago I pointed out a cockpit piece where some of the interior edges
were sticking out of the bottom. I shudder to think at how much work it would
be to wade through all of the older part files and make sure they're all up to
spec, but most of these appear to exist as duplicate part files under the
regular numbering scheme (I say "most" because the _Animal horses don't change
colors, but the Animal horses do). If they're completely redundant, is there
any logical reason to keep them in the core part package? Is it sentimentality
on the behalf of the creator, or the fact that people might have actually used
them in distributed files?
> Note that the ~Technic parts at the bottom of the list are ok - they are
> sub-parts and not usually used in building.
Didn't even bother to check the end of the list.
> Yes, Peeron generally matches LDraw. I have often used that fact to search
> for parts - use Peeron search to find them, then type the number into LDraw.
I figured as much, once I noticed that even the numbers for various decorated
parts matched, so I've done that on a few occassions. Mostly when I've done it,
it was to see if parts that I needed had been entered into the Parts Tracker yet
(usually they hadn't).
> No good if you aren't online though.
Yeah. *sigh* Well, unless you're one of the Bogers, in which case you can
probably look it up locally.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Part search
|
| (...) Yeah, some of those Boat parts need to be relocated. Especially now that the Wedge group has been broadened to include the boat base bricks (originally, wedges were only the 3x4 wedges, like part 6069). (...) That's not a totally bad idea. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Part search
|
| (...) Well I've found it helpful on may occasions, just not usually when I'm doing a cold search for a part. Besides, I was just pointing out that "since this method only allows you to search by part number" was incorrect. Note also that the part (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
27 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
|
|
|
|
