Part Suffixes

[Orion Pobursky]

Right now we have 6 different types of part number suffixes:
pXX(X)/pNNNN - Patterns
cXX - Shortcuts
dXX - Sticker Shortcuts
kNN - Flexible sections
-fN - Flexible states
s01 - Subpart
bNN - Sticker box subparts
Note: X = 0-9a-z, N = 0-9

b and s are easy, they're only for subparts.

By my reckoning, the rule is:
p/c in any order followed by optional one of d, k, or -f

Questions:
Is <part number>p01c01 a pattern, shortcut, or both?
What about <part number>c01p01?
If it's one or the other, what is the base part: <part number> or <part number>p/c01?

[Orion Pobursky]

I've reflected on this a bit. I think the possible combos are:

Pattern:
pXX
pXX-fN
cXXpXX
cXXpXX-fn

Composite:
cXX
cXX-fN
pXXcXX
pXXcXX-fn

Sticker Shortcut:
dXX
dXX-fN
pXXdXX
cXXdXX
pXXdXX-fn
cXXdXX-fn
pXXcXXdXX
cXXpXXdXX
pXXcXXdXX-fn
cXXpXXdXX-fn

Flexible Section
kXX
pXXkXX

[Peter Blomberg]

Questions:
Is <part number>p01c01 a pattern, shortcut, or both?
What about <part number>c01p01?
If it's one or the other, what is the base part: <part number> or <part number>p/c01?

Neither.

All patterned parts should have an unpatterned base version even if it never existed physically.
All assemblies should have an uncolored base version even if it never existed physically.
Some assemblies have an assembly number <> and some are suffixed onto the base part number <>cXX.

An assembly contains at least two parts; any of which can be patterned or colored. Whether they are or are not patterned/colored, should not affect the numbering.

<> is the base part
<>p01 is a patterned version of the base part --> PATTERN
<>c01 is an assembly containing the uncolored base part --> ASSEMBLY
<>c02 is an assembly containing colored part(s) --> ASSEMBLY
<>c03 is an assembly containing any number of patterned parts --> ASSEMBLY

<>p01c01 could be a shortcut(assembly) containing <>p01 as a member --> ASSEMBLY
<>p01c01 could be useful when there is already a corresponding c01 for an unpatterned part, but it is rare that a pattern would duplicate all existing assemblies. Therefore, I'd prefer not to have the p01 in the part number.

<>c01p01 is clearly a misnomer because the above suggests that any pattern or fixed part color is to affect a part and not an assembly.

[Hageta]

Neither.

All patterned parts should have an unpatterned base version even if it never existed physically.
All assemblies should have an uncolored base version even if it never existed physically.
Some assemblies have an assembly number <> and some are suffixed onto the base part number <>cXX.

An assembly contains at least two parts; any of which can be patterned or colored. Whether they are or are not patterned/colored, should not affect the numbering.

<> is the base part
<>p01 is a patterned version of the base part --> PATTERN
<>c01 is an assembly containing the uncolored base part --> ASSEMBLY
<>c02 is an assembly containing colored part(s) --> ASSEMBLY
<>c03 is an assembly containing any number of patterned parts --> ASSEMBLY

<>p01c01 could be a shortcut(assembly) containing <>p01 as a member --> ASSEMBLY
<>p01c01 could be useful when there is already a corresponding c01 for an unpatterned part, but it is rare that a pattern would duplicate all existing assemblies. Therefore, I'd prefer not to have the p01 in the part number.

<>c01p01 is clearly a misnomer because the above suggests that any pattern or fixed part color is to affect a part and not an assembly.

Do unpatterened parts, that do not have physical version, have the "~" name prefix?

[Orion Pobursky]

Do unpatterened parts, that do not have physical version, have the "~" name prefix?

They do not. Only normally inseparable assembly parts, moved, obsolete and subparts get a ~

[Hageta]

They do not. Only normally inseparable assembly parts, moved, obsolete and subparts get a ~

Maybe they should since you can not actually use them to recreate a real life model(unless it is a print that can be removed).
Speaking against this are the following use cases(that I could think of):
- use as placeholder for variant not included in the library yet
- use purely for digital models

[Peter Blomberg]

Maybe they should since you can not actually use them to recreate a real life model(unless it is a print that can be removed).
Speaking against this are the following use cases(that I could think of):
- use as placeholder for variant not included in the library yet
- use purely for digital models

It is also relatively common that the patterned/colored parts/assemblies are not created, leaving the uncolored hypothetical version the only digital version available.

[Orion Pobursky]

Maybe they should since you can not actually use them to recreate a real life model(unless it is a print that can be removed).
Speaking against this are the following use cases(that I could think of):
- use as placeholder for variant not included in the library yet
- use purely for digital models

There are plenty of creators that remove prints from bricks for their MOCs. That's part of the reason why we do uncolored versions.

[Hageta]

There are plenty of creators that remove prints from bricks for their MOCs. That's part of the reason why we do uncolored versions.

I just thought you could not uncolour dualmolded pieces, but than the idea came to me, that you can paint them.

[Orion Pobursky]

I just thought you could not uncolour dualmolded pieces, but than the idea came to me, that you can paint them.

Dual molds were, unfortunately, included in the p suffix, a choice that is not able to be reversed at this point. 

The decision to have an unpatterned version of everything predates that by quite a bit.

[Chris Böhnke]

There might be the case of a dual-molded part being released in a monochrome version later on, which is hardly predictable.

Admittedly that would not work for parts with an ABS/rubber combination.

[Orion Pobursky]

This case would likely result in a new design id.