|
 |
| | | Author: | mfav  | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 20:52 | | Subject: | StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 230 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.
Is there a standardization scheme in the works for items like these shown, and
similar items, where the length exceeds the footprint of the attachment plate?
If you're going by the scheme used for 6239, then 2430 ought to be a 1x5.
If you're going by the scheme used for 2430, then 6239 ought to be a 2x3.
I know this is bound to have implications all over the catalog with many modified
bricks and plates and other things, especially when you get into SNOT pieces,
but there's inconsistency within and across categories now.
One would think the overall x-y-z dimensions of the piece would be considered
every time...
I know this is going to require some quiet contemplation followed by noisy debate,
but some semblance of consistency would be really nice to have.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 21:13 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.
Is there a standardization scheme in the works for items like these shown, and
similar items, where the length exceeds the footprint of the attachment plate?
If you're going by the scheme used for 6239, then 2430 ought to be a 1x5.
If you're going by the scheme used for 2430, then 6239 ought to be a 2x3.
|
That would be 2340 
| | I know this is bound to have implications all over the catalog with many modified
bricks and plates and other things, especially when you get into SNOT pieces,
but there's inconsistency within and across categories now.
One would think the overall x-y-z dimensions of the piece would be considered
every time...
I know this is going to require some quiet contemplation followed by noisy debate,
but some semblance of consistency would be really nice to have.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 21:24 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.
Is there a standardization scheme in the works for items like these shown, and
similar items, where the length exceeds the footprint of the attachment plate?
If you're going by the scheme used for 6239, then 2430 ought to be a 1x5.
If you're going by the scheme used for 2430, then 6239 ought to be a 2x3.
I know this is bound to have implications all over the catalog with many modified
bricks and plates and other things, especially when you get into SNOT pieces,
but there's inconsistency within and across categories now.
One would think the overall x-y-z dimensions of the piece would be considered
every time...
I know this is going to require some quiet contemplation followed by noisy debate,
but some semblance of consistency would be really nice to have.
|
I think average Joe-catalogsearcher will have better luck if the name is the
dimensions of the plate at the bottom. Measuring how far the tail extends backward
is a more advanced skill.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 22:07 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.
Is there a standardization scheme in the works for items like these shown, and
similar items, where the length exceeds the footprint of the attachment plate?
If you're going by the scheme used for 6239, then 2430 ought to be a 1x5.
If you're going by the scheme used for 2430, then 6239 ought to be a 2x3.
I know this is bound to have implications all over the catalog with many modified
bricks and plates and other things, especially when you get into SNOT pieces,
but there's inconsistency within and across categories now.
One would think the overall x-y-z dimensions of the piece would be considered
every time...
I know this is going to require some quiet contemplation followed by noisy debate,
but some semblance of consistency would be really nice to have.
|
I think average Joe-catalogsearcher will have better luck if the name is the
dimensions of the plate at the bottom. Measuring how far the tail extends backward
is a more advanced skill.
|
Agreed.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 22:41 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | So that makes a a 1x3? |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 23:08 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
That one is a lot easier to measure with your eyes.
If a single consistent rule is necessary and this is the way it needs to go,
I'm not going to stand in the way.
But if the tails could say they are a tail on a 1x4 base, I'd like that.
For packaging dimensions we really need to see the extremes, but in the name
of the piece we need to see what we will search for and what will help us identify
the piece. I can't imagine a scenario when you are building something with
an airplane tail where you need to make sure it is going to clear some tolerance.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 23:24 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The 2340 has studs on the top, clearly making it a1x5 in stud length.
Anyway, the question is...is the item on the roadmap?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 01:49 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | The 2340 has studs on the top, clearly making it a1x5 in stud length.
Anyway, the question is...is the item on the roadmap?
|
I see what has been written here, and if I may offer a new user perspective?
I have a few tail pieces and ran some search tests (using various descriptions
of what I thought I should search for) to see what I could find, and the results
were all over the place. I had the most success just typing in airplane tail,
then adding parameters as I found them, but it was less than ideal. I did find
the tails I have, but it took several searches and they never all appeared in
the same search - which I would have expected searching just for airplane tail.
Interestingly, I didn't always get repeatable results. So I agree, we need
a workable standard.
After giving the matter some thought, I think I would find success with a W x
L X H x S and additional description afterward. Where W X L describes the base,
H for the height, and S for the sweep extension. For example:
2430 - 1 x 4 x 3 x 1 swept airplane tail, with 1 X 2 tip and RES Q sticker
6239 - 2 x 3 x 3.67 x 3 swept airplane tail, no decorations
Just my thoughts, it may not be the answer, but maybe it sparks a better idea?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 04:32 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Legoboy_II writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | The 2340 has studs on the top, clearly making it a1x5 in stud length.
Anyway, the question is...is the item on the roadmap?
|
|
Should you not start calling it an atlas?
| |
I see what has been written here, and if I may offer a new user perspective?
I have a few tail pieces and ran some search tests (using various descriptions
of what I thought I should search for) to see what I could find, and the results
were all over the place. I had the most success just typing in airplane tail,
then adding parameters as I found them, but it was less than ideal. I did find
the tails I have, but it took several searches and they never all appeared in
the same search - which I would have expected searching just for airplane tail.
Interestingly, I didn't always get repeatable results. So I agree, we need
a workable standard.
After giving the matter some thought, I think I would find success with a W x
L X H x S and additional description afterward. Where W X L describes the base,
H for the height, and S for the sweep extension. For example:
2430 - 1 x 4 x 3 x 1 swept airplane tail, with 1 X 2 tip and RES Q sticker
6239 - 2 x 3 x 3.67 x 3 swept airplane tail, no decorations
Just my thoughts, it may not be the answer, but maybe it sparks a better idea?
|
Split the fin from the plates, and use its max dimensions thus:
2340 - 1 x 4 Tail Plate, 4 x 3 Fin, 1 x 2 T-Tail Plate and RES Q Sticker
6239 - 2 x 3 Tail Plate, 4 x 3.67 Fin
54094 - 2 x 14 Tail Plate, 14 x 8 Fin, 2 x 2 T-Tail Plate
(I don't have a , but I think those are the dimensions, obviously
it must be corrected as required)
This might also allow dimensions to be entered for the rest of that category
(how does a tail, shuttle differ from a tail shuttle, small? Both are tails,
just add the dimensions and do away with shuttle and small as descriptors, since
the one is not the small version of the other anyway)
Decide on a proper definition of a Tail part actually and standardise its descriptions.
Decide if the purpose is a vertical stabiliser, for which also becomes
a Tail, or if a Tail is wedge, plate, brick etc modified by fins, for which
, , also become Tails, not only .
As to 4867 - Tail Wedge, Fin , 2 x 2 T-Tail Plate (add dimensions), only because
someday the masters at TLG might decide to make a T-Tail Tile
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 03:27 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.
|
It is, but definitely a good additional point to consider. I added the following
sentence to that project:
"Per mfav this project should also include an examination of how part dimensions
are titled, especially parts that have dimensions that exceed an attachment plate
(airplane tails, for example)."
And let me just say that it's not my roadmap. I made it for all of us to
share. It's our roadmap, our ongoing discussion about how to best
organize this catalog we share.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | crazylegoman | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 12:29 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I would be in favor of the part size being determined by the overall part dimensions
and not just the base that attaches to studs in the plane tail category
(and possibly other categories.) However, I think that most categories (modified
bricks, modified plates, etc.) would not benefit at all from such size alterations
in their names.
David
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 14:48 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:
| | I would be in favor of the part size being determined by the overall part dimensions
and not just the base that attaches to studs in the plane tail category
(and possibly other categories.) However, I think that most categories (modified
bricks, modified plates, etc.) would not benefit at all from such size alterations
in their names.
|
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think this is the situation we're in
right now. Some are thought of "one way" and some are thought of "another way".
The "description" labelling might be one way where the "stud dimensions" labelling
might be another way, and the "shipping dimensions" a third way...
It gets real messy real fast.
I'm up to a potential database field count of 15 so far...
I know: roadmap 36.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Vermont
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Portugal
South Africa, Western Cape
