Thanks for the links!
I agree that we should not have b- and c- versions.
Additionally I would avoid having a similar pattern numbers sport a different one depending on the physical part, e.g. so avoiding 3626bp02 and a 3626cp02 having a different pattern.
That would mean moving 3626cp02, 3626cp80, 3626cp8e, 3626cpap and 3626cpb3 to an alternative available number.
That 3626cp8d is already official with a different pattern, don't know if that shall be touched?
What's important in my opinion, it an extension of the numbering scheme for parts that come in a huge number of variants. The theoretical available space is 36 (0-z) x 36 = 1296. There are more than double the number of heads and torsi around...
I agree that we should not have b- and c- versions.
Additionally I would avoid having a similar pattern numbers sport a different one depending on the physical part, e.g. so avoiding 3626bp02 and a 3626cp02 having a different pattern.
That would mean moving 3626cp02, 3626cp80, 3626cp8e, 3626cpap and 3626cpb3 to an alternative available number.
That 3626cp8d is already official with a different pattern, don't know if that shall be touched?
What's important in my opinion, it an extension of the numbering scheme for parts that come in a huge number of variants. The theoretical available space is 36 (0-z) x 36 = 1296. There are more than double the number of heads and torsi around...