+- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org)
+-- Forum: Models and Parts (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-18.html)
+--- Forum: Parts Authoring (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-19.html)
+--- Thread: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 (/thread-3915.html)
Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Chris Dee - 2012-03-21
I am hoping to be able to issue Parts Update 2012-01 within the next couple of weeks. That means I might be posting a small number requests in this thread for priority review of files that are needed to make a coherent release.
1) I'd like Minifig Coin with "10" Gothic Type to be released with its 1, 2, 5 denomination versions, which are all ready for admin review. It would be good if the re-titled Sans-serif versions could go out at the same time.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Tim Gould - 2012-03-21
Hi Chris,
WRT the Sans Serif coins are you just after approval of the name or are there real changes to the parts?
Tim
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Chris Dee - 2012-03-21
The !HISTORY lines are accurate - just a change to the description.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Steffen - 2012-03-21
This is good news to hear! If there's a helping hand needed somewhere, let us know.
The upcoming release will contain quite a bunch of files related to each other in some groups.
Just for convenience, I've put some links here which will list related files easily.
The lists below were carefully chosen:
They collect only parts which we know of which should go out with the coming release.
It is not a wishlist.
Mindstorms files
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi?q=mindstorms
Electric Power Functions files
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi?q=electric+power+functions
Figure Fabuland files
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi?q=figure+fabuland
Train Track 12V files
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi?q=train+track+12v
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptreviewsummary.cgi?f=traintrack12v
12V files
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi?q=12v
Minifig Coin files
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi?q=minifig+coin
files using the new magnet material
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi?q=magnet+material
Plant Tree files
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi?q=plant+tree
Technic Control Centre files
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi?q=technic+control+centre
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Jude Parrill - 2012-03-23
Wow, this is great news! I was about to ask/suggest doing one, but figured I'd probably just get yelled at. The amount of output you authors and reviewers have done in the last 3 months is simply astonishing. I mean seriously, 1200+ parts? Do you guys think you can keep up this level of efficiency for the entire year?
I do have one category I'd like to add to this list - Tires:
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptscan.cgi?q=tyre
Close to 2/3 of that list are just waiting for admin-review, although it may appear otherwise. What happens is a lot of the files have subfiles which need admin-review, and once those files recieve it, they themselves will only need admin-review. Take, for example, these parts:
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/3634.dat
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/32019.dat
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/56891.dat
Given I'm not a part author or reviewer myself, I'd imagine the best way for me to help is to quit belly-aching and stay out of your way. However, I remember you saying last time that there was some going through parts/processing that needs to be done. If I can help out in any way with that (or anything else), let me know.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Chris Dee - 2012-03-23
Jude Wrote:Given I'm not a part author or reviewer myself, I'd imagine the best way for me to help is to quit belly-aching and stay out of your way. However, I remember you saying last time that there was some going through parts/processing that needs to be done. If I can help out in any way with that (or anything else), let me know.
For the tyres, the best help that could be provided would be to figure out the descriptions that match the current nomenclature and post here or as a novote (rather than re-submitting and losing all the votes). I can then update with an admin edit.
0 // Nomenclature: width_(mm)/profile_as_%age_of_width x rim_diameter_(mm)
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Jetro de Château - 2012-03-25
Not sure if this is the place.. (probably not
) but some of the parts that have been marked as Power Functions (specifically the USB hub, the Tilt Sensor and the IR Distance Sensor are not PF. Strictly speaking they use the same connection protocol (and PF motors will connect to the hub) but the element are not in any practical way compatible with the rest of PF elements. Maybe "WeDo" should be included in the name to avoid confusion (and make finding them easier) unless of course that woould cause legal issues due to rights of the WeDo name.I'm really looking forward to this update. Huge number of new parts and ... well, all in good time.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Tim Gould - 2012-03-25
I think the point is that they use the PFS standard for connections and, thus, fit under that system rather than Mindstorms etc. It makes more sense to find them under PFS than anything else, and WeDo would just be confusing (if you're not one of the 30 people who own one
)
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Jetro de Château - 2012-03-25
But if you don't own them you won't use them either.... no big point though.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Tim Gould - 2012-03-25
True. I'm easy either way.
Tim
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Philippe Hurbain - 2012-03-26
Tim Gould Wrote:True. I'm easy either way.Same thing here, but as the hub does drives Power Functions motors, it can be seen as a PFS element! Also "Func" is used in LEGO designation for these parts. WeDo is already there as keyword in LDraw files - I know, few tools can use keywords
.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Jude Parrill - 2012-03-29
Chris Dee Wrote:For the tyres, the best help that could be provided would be to figure out the descriptions that match the current nomenclature and post here or as a novote (rather than re-submitting and losing all the votes). I can then update with an admin edit.
0 // Nomenclature: width_(mm)/profile_as_%age_of_width x rim_diameter_(mm)
Hmmm, well I don't necessarily have all these tires, but I can do my best. I am a little confused about some of the items in the nomenclature, though:
Width (in mm) - Is this the inside width (e.g. rim width) or maximum width of the tire?
profile_as_%age_of_width - This term absolutely baffles me, I have no idea what this means.
Rim Diameter (in mm) - So this is the diameter of rim which fits the tire, right?
If you have any diagrams, tutorials, or topics to point me to, they'd be appreciated. Also, a quick explation of the current naming convention (A x B) would be appreciated. I'm guessing some of these numbers may be useful.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Magnus Forsberg - 2012-03-29
I made this some time ago. Maybe it could be of help.
![[Image: wheel1.png]](http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/MagFors/LDraw/pictures/wheel1.png)
0 // On this tyre, 3139, it is:
0 // Nomenclature: width_(mm)/profile_as_%age_of_width x rim_diameter_(mm)
0 // width = 10 ldu x 0.4 mm = 4
0 // profile = (8 ldu / 10 ldu)x100 = 80
0 // rim = 20 ldu x 0.4 mm = 8
0 // Tyre 4/ 80 x 8 Single Smooth Type 1
See also my attached file.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Chris Dee - 2012-03-30
Thanks Magnus, that is correct. It is based on the standard nomenclature for real-life vehicle tyres.
Jude you don't need to own the physical parts - the dimensions can be determined from the LDraw file (using something like the attached "Ruler" file, which has both LDu and mm scales).
The (A x B) dimensions are NOT standardised and although sometimes moulded onto the parts are not used consistently - hence my desire to move to this (industry-like) standard.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Jude Parrill - 2012-03-30
Thanks Magnus, I think I got it, although you may want to check my work for the first couple ones.
I started off with the 2807 Tyre Minifig Bicycle. Based off my learnings and calculations, it's new name should be:
Tire 1.6 / 75 x 14.4 Minifig Bicycle
Again, somebody may want to check this just to make sure I'm doing it right.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Jude Parrill - 2012-03-30
OK, well, I'm just using MLCad to figure out the dimensions in LDU, and then multiplying them by 0.4, as Magnus did, to get the MM. If this is incorrect, let me know.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Jude Parrill - 2012-03-30
OK, so as I delve further down the rabbit hole, some issues are arising. After looking at some tires already in the correct nomenclature and re-calculating/figuring them to see if I arrive at the same results, I've noticed some things that seem to clash with with what Magnus has said, as well as just some general issues.
Rounding - For the most part, it seems like most people round to the nearest integer, although not all. Given that you must multiply the LDUs by 0.4 to put them into millimeters (I actually found an article that states this... well, it's actually more like .3993, but .4 is a close enough approximation for this), this will almost always lead to having a single decimal point, although never more, so to me, keeping the decimal point seems reasonable.
Profile - OK, so after doing some thinking and a little research, I realized this actually refers to length of the sidewalls on the tire. Now according Magnus's definition (which is, I believe, the correct definition), this is the length of the sidewall when the rim is attached, so that it doesn't include the bits which are embedded into the rim (which is what I believe is used on real tires). However, it seems on many tires that the authors actually would include these bits in their calculations, which makes them inconsistent. This leads me to believe that further clarification is required, both for me and part authors.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Chris Dee - 2012-03-30
Dimensions only need to be precise enough to distuinguish one tyre part from another - so rounding is OK. We are not looking for engineering precision here - just enough to be descriptive.
The diagram/file that Markus provided is correct - the rim diameter should be that of the outer edge of the wheel hub and the profile is the measurement from there to the tread.
Re: Planning for Parts Update 2012-01 - Jude Parrill - 2012-03-30
OK, so in the case of the Bicycle Tire, it should probably then be:
Tire 2 / 75 x 14 Minifig Bicycle
Thanks for the clarification. This means that some of the released parts in that nomenclature will need to be updated, so I'll try to do that if I get time.
Tyre Nomenclature - Philippe Hurbain - 2012-05-25
I am wondering about proper number of space characters to insert in front of numbers for description sorting.
eg. I think that 30028,
Code:
Tyre 8/ 40 x 8 Slick SmoothCode:
Tyre 8 / 40 x 8 Slick SmoothCode:
Tyre 8/ 40x 8 Slick SmoothCode:
Tyre 28 / 23 x 43 ZR StreetCode:
Tyre 28/ 23x43 ZR Street(***) Tyres presently on PT uses no space character between rim width and /, but one between height and x. Why?
Thoughts?
Re: Tyre Nomenclature - Chris Dee - 2012-05-25
The description for 30038 is incorrect:
Code:
Tyre 8/ 40 x 8 Slick SmoothCode:
Tyre 8/ 40 x 8 Slick SmoothThe nomenclature is meant to follow the ISO standard for real vehicle tyres, as closely as possible. Although not explicitly stated here the intention was to allow for a 3-digit profile percentage and a 2-digit width. The ISO standard does not have white space around the "/". The inclusion of spaces around the "x" was arbitrary, and in the ISO standard would be B (bias belt), D (diagonal) or R (radial) without spaces. Since LEGO tyres don't have such internal construction, x (or X) is a good substitute.
However in the nomenclature explanation
Code:
width_(mm)/profile_as_%age_of_width x rim_diameter_(mm)Code:
width_(mm)/profile_as_%age_of_widthxrim_diameter_(mm)Code:
width_(mm)/profile_as_%age_of_widthXrim_diameter_(mm)I am happy to make the title changes if the majority view is to remove the spaces.
Re: Tyre Nomenclature - Steffen - 2012-05-25
I would like to see "%age" replaced by "percentage".
When first reading the first form, I associated "% of age", and was completely confused.
Re: Tyre Nomenclature - Chris Dee - 2012-05-25
Sorry - a native English speaker's shorthand.