Train Hooks from the 1960's x507, x508 and their plates.

[Gerald Lasser]

I started doing the hooks and plates for the early train connections and now it is time to start uploading them and here comes the trouble:

What is currently on the PT?

Hooks: x507 and x508
Plates: 737 and 509 for the hooks, 753 for magnets

x507
This is actually a part that consists of two parts, the bottom plate and the hook-element
Furthermore there are two versions of it, the earlier one where the hook is connected in the middle with a small round element and the latter part which has a rectangular interconnection with the botom plate.

For compatibility I would propose:
- add the two versions x507a and x507b
- make x507 a "move to" to x507a

so far so good, what number to assign to the bottom plate?

x508
This part is one mold, I  can simply use the existing file on the PT and amend it.

[Chris Dee]

I started doing the hooks and plates for the early train connections and now it is time to start uploading them and here comes the trouble:

What is currently on the PT?

Hooks: x507 and x508
Plates: 737 and 509 for the hooks, 753 for magnets

x507
This is actually a part that consists of two parts, the bottom plate and the hook-element
Furthermore there are two versions of it, the earlier one where the hook is connected in the middle with a small round element and the latter part which has a rectangular interconnection with the botom plate.

For compatibility I would propose:
- add the two versions x507a and x507b
- make x507 a "move to" to x507a

so far so good, what number to assign to the bottom plate?

x508
This part is one mold, I  can simply use the existing file on the PT and amend it.

We are out of 3-digit part numbers so we now use uNNN or uNNNN. Where there is some resemblance to a Peeron xNNN number it is acceptable to use a matching uNNN number rather than something from the u9NNN series. So please use u886 for the plate (or u886a/u886b if there are two versions) - see http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/x886 .

Note that on release xNNN numbers will lose the 'x', but uNNN number retain the 'u'.

[Gerald Lasser]

We are out of 3-digit part numbers so we now use uNNN or uNNNN. Where there is some resemblance to a Peeron xNNN number it is acceptable to use a matching uNNN number rather than something from the u9NNN series. So please use u886 for the plate (or u886a/u886b if there are two versions) - see http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/x886 .

Note that on release xNNN numbers will lose the 'x', but uNNN number retain the 'u'.

OK, will do!

Thanks

[Gerald Lasser]

I uploaded now the base as u886 to the PT, I also made a small PPT to show my intent:

   

Where I see a collision coming up are the assembled hooks marked in yellow.

They are permanent assemblies. Rightfully they shall get a xxxc01 and xxxc02 number, however the appropriate numbers x507c01 and x507c02 (using the x507 hook and the 737 plate), are already used, though in the unofficial library, but I guess those parts are already used in some MOCs in the wild.

So shall the assembly be numbered x507c03 and c04? would that make sense? Or use 'a' and 'b'?

The existing x507 would then be made into a 'move to'

[Magnus Forsberg]

As Chris said in his comment: Any part beginning with x will loose that initial x upon release.
Hense, there is no need for a Move to, and a bulider will have to update any model using the unofficial part, anyway.

I also think, that it is wrong to use c01 and c02 for the same assembly in two different positions.
It would be better to use c01-f1 and c01-f2.

Why would you name the fourth part 509bc01? I don't understad were the b come from.

Wouldn't it be better to abandon the 'random' number x507 (and all of the assemblies using x507 and x508), and create u886ac01 and u886bc01 instead? The third hook would become 508 on release.

[Gerald Lasser]

As Chris said in his comment: Any part beginning with x will loose that initial x upon release.
Hense, there is no need for a Move to, and a bulider will have to update any model using the unofficial part, anyway.

I also think, that it is wrong to use c01 and c02 for the same assembly in two different positions.
It would be better to use c01-f1 and c01-f2.

Why would you name the fourth part 509bc01? I don't understad were the b come from.

Wouldn't it be better to abandon the 'random' number x507 (and all of the assemblies using x507 and x508), and create u886ac01 and u886bc01 instead? The third hook would become 508 on release.

Thanks for your opinion,
 
Using the proposed numbering based on the "u886" number also for the assemblies and abandoning the x507 makes sense.

And as the part-naming conventions suggest, saving the default positions with a "f" suffix is fine.

509bc01, well spotted, that's a typo or a copy/paste artifact.

[Chris Dee]

I uploaded now the base as u886 to the PT, I also made a small PPT to show my intent:



Where I see a collision coming up are the assembled hooks marked in yellow.

They are permanent assemblies. Rightfully they shall get a xxxc01 and xxxc02 number, however the appropriate numbers x507c01 and x507c02 (using the x507 hook and the 737 plate), are already used, though in the unofficial library, but I guess those parts are already used in some MOCs in the wild.

So shall the assembly be numbered x507c03 and c04? would that make sense? Or use 'a' and 'b'?

The existing x507 would then be made into a 'move to'

If people have used the unofficial x507c01 and x507c02, then they should suffer the consequences if these change - thatis the well-documented caveat of using UNofficial parts. But, in fact these will not be released as x507..., so there will be no impact.

[Gerald Lasser]

It's about time to finalize this chapter... and get rid of the HOLD votes, that circle around the naming of these parts.

Starting Point:

• I am using x886 for the base of the Hook, where the hook consists of two fused parts
  

• I am using the x508 to represent the parts, where hook and base are moulded as one piece.
  
• All required plates (for the shortcuts) are official, they need some touch-up
  

There are two bases available:

• u886a, round hole
  
• u886b, rectangular hole
  

I constructed the corresponding hooks:

• x508a, to fit the round hole (HOLD, because of naming)
  
• x508b, to fit the rectangular hole (HOLD, because of naming)
  

so far so good, now the collection of available hooks:

• u886ac01, consisting of u886a and x508a (HOLD, because of Part Type)
  
• u886bc01, consisting of u886b and x508b
  
• x508 (single mould)
  

Adding the official plates, gives us several shortcuts (see the overview)

Now, let's address the "HOLD" reasons, starting with the easiest first:

• 509c01-f1 and 509c02-f2: Just a copy paste error in the name, needs to be "Type 2" in both
  
• u886ac01 and u886bc01:
  -> Part Type: An objection is that this should be a shortcut, my argument against is that these parts can only be disassembled by destroying them, so in my view this would be a part. Also concerning the rendering, there should be no gap between these parts, as they are fused together.
  
• x508a, x508b and also x508, u886ac01, u886bc01:
  -> Naming: Should the "stand-alone hooks", x508a and x508b carry a different name? i.e. some "u"-name?
  should u886ac01 and u886bc01 be renamed to a x508a and x508b, i.e. that their name reflects their relationship for consistency? What would we name the hooks then? OR should x508 be renamed to u886c? 
  

General:

• I would also swap the suffix -f1 and -f2 of the shortcuts in order to be aligned with the (official) magnet 4023c01 and 4023c02, where "1" is for Coupled and "2" is for Uncoupled position.
  

   

EDIT: added one option concerning the naming

[Gerald Lasser]

This is just to push the thread to the top again, as it drowned in a lot of discussion. I would like to finish the hooks and the naming is crucial, please check the post above.
Thanks

[Willy Tschager]

OR should x508 be renamed to u886c?

Yes, for consistency.

w.

[Magnus Forsberg]

• u886ac01 and u886bc01:
  -> Part Type: An objection is that this should be a shortcut, my argument against is that these parts can only be disassembled by destroying them, so in my view this would be a part. Also concerning the rendering, there should be no gap between these parts, as they are fused together.
  

There is no rendering issue. Parts inside a Shortcut will not be rendered with gaps between them.
Here are some images proving it.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Philo/Misc/gaps.png
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Philo/Misc/gaps2.png
Maybe Philo can remember the details about what settings he used to make this images.

Dual molded parts use subfile + subfile = Part
Glued or fused parts is always a Shortcut = part + part

[Philippe Hurbain]

Maybe Philo can remember the details about what settings he used to make this images.

I don't remember precisely the details, but basically I used LDView with a HUGE seam width (preference -> geometry -> seam width) with separated parts and parts grouped in a shortcut.

[Magnus Forsberg]

• x508a, x508b and also x508, u886ac01, u886bc01:
  -> Naming: Should the "stand-alone hooks", x508a and x508b carry a different name? i.e. some "u"-name?
  should u886ac01 and u886bc01 be renamed to a x508a and x508b, i.e. that their name reflects their relationship for consistency? What would we name the hooks then? OR should x508 be renamed to u886c? 
  

Both of these numbers are unknown, x508 and u866.
I think we can solve this by giving the three different hook+plate assemblies/part a single new number.

I suggest renumbering:
u886ac01   => u9XXXa (a shortcut made of u886a + x508a)
u886bc01   => u9XXXb (a shortcut made of u886b + x508b)
x508           => u9XXXc (a part made of s/u886s01 + s/x508s01)

[Magnus Forsberg]

I want to see this happen:

Delete all shortcuts with the hook in a "Pulling" position. If a user wants to have that level of detail he can inline
the default part, and reposition parts, and models.
x507c02
x508c02
3176c02

Delete all hook plates/files with different orientation of the studs. Orientation of the logo on the studs differ, over time, on many parts.
737b
737bc01-f1
737bc01-f2
Remove the "a" from all parts using it; 737a, 737ac01-f1, 737ac01-f2

Don't use "1a" or "1b" in the descriptions. There's three diffent versions of the hook. Use "1,2,3" or "a,b,c" instead.
Use a common u-partnumber for all of the hooks.

[Chris Dee]

I want to see this happen:

Delete all shortcuts with the hook in a "Pulling" position. If a user wants to have that level of detail he can inline
the default part, and reposition parts, and models.
x507c02
x508c02
3176c02

Delete all hook plates/files with different orientation of the studs. Orientation of the logo on the studs differ, over time, on many parts.
737b
737bc01-f1
737bc01-f2
Remove the "a" from all parts using it; 737a, 737ac01-f1, 737ac01-f2

Don't use "1a" or "1b" in the descriptions. There's three diffent versions of the hook. Use "1,2,3" or "a,b,c" instead.
Use a common u-partnumber for all of the hooks.

Massive rename/renumber excercise completed. Reviuew summary page here.

[Gerald Lasser]

Massive rename/renumber excercise completed. Reviuew summary page here.

Thank you!