| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Admin_Russell  | | Posted: | Apr 7, 2021 10:48 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, cosmicray writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Just to note, you have snipped the image starting with the 2x4 brick but not
included its dimensions. I got confused with the first set of dimensions x, y
and z until I realised they are for the slope and not the brick.
|
Sorry about that. Here is another screenshot:
|
An observation, and not a criticism, the Z dimension (on the brick and the slope)
correctly includes the height of the stud on top, and because of that is not
directly convertible into brick heights (when measured in brick units). This
is because assembled bricks nest the stud within the bottom of the above brick.
And, as we all know, no one ever ships bricks assembled (but see below).
Which also, causes the rather oblique situation of hips/legs (which have studs
on top) and torsos, to not add up correctly in the Z direction, because of being
shipped individually.
Somewhere in all this (part II or part III ?) we need to address the issue I
pointed out a couple of weeks back about part-assemblies (e.g. wheels and tires)
and how they are measured for X+Y+Z and if assembling them is required.
Nita Rae
|
There is no relationship or dependency between the two types of dimensions
- stud and metric. I know in the past that stud dimensions were used to give
an estimate of actual metric size, but we don't want to do that now.
I will continue adding examples of how we want you to measure things for the
catalog. It's going to be a long Help page!
|
 |
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 7, 2021 10:44 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, tec writes:
| | Update:
Many of my measurements got rejected
Is it because of fractions? (0.5 0.66 ..)
My example was:
* | | 44567b Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side without Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge |
where W=1.67
|
They were rejected because we do not accept stud dimensions on non-standard parts.
Especially now that we have actual metric values being added, there is no need
to find the stud dimensions for weird shapes.
In fact, we are considering hiding stud dimensions altogether, or moving them
to a separate info tab to keep people from being confused. Almost all pertinent
stud information is contained in the item name anyway.
Of course, it is a bit subjective whether a part is "weird" enough to not have
stud dimensions, but that is up to the catalog admin handling the request. Personally,
I would encourage you to spend 100% of your measurement submissions on actual
dimensions at this point, and not worry about the studs.
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Apr 7, 2021 08:31 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Brick.Door writes:
| | In Catalog, Emporiosa writes:
| | In Catalog, Brick.Door writes:
| | How will this be used? Will we be able to set up a shipping method that is only
allowed if all pieces are under a certain thickness? (i.i USPS large envelope/flat)
So the checkout would need to find the smallest of the three dimensions for each
element in the cart, and make sure it is below the threshold.
Or is it just to better approximate the total volume of the order?
|
It's already very much in use with Canadians sellers; it can jump from a
$1.94 stamp to $22 if the part is over 20mm in thickness. Canadian sellers have
been manually putting in the packaging dimensions for every oversized item (and
setting those items to Volume based).
What you do is set the packaging limits (if you have any for USPS) in the shipping
option like you mentioned, and it ensures that if there's a thickness maximum
(like the 20mm in Canada for Lettermail), that no part has any dimension that
goes over that. There's also general volumetric dimensions that you can set
where it's to try to calculate if "that much LEGO" can fit into what you
gave it, but I'm not entirely sure how well this part works.
|
So you have to exclude a part with any dimension over 20mm? That doesn't
seem like it would work very well. A 1x6x5 brick can easily fit but only one
of its dimensions is less than 20mm.
|
Believe it or not, the correct answer to this question also involves orientation
within the envelope when shipped. If you put solid bricks (or any part) in the
envelope with the wrong orientation, then it becomes what is known as a nonmachinable
letter. It all has to do with what USPS (and likely Canada Post) normally
expect letter mail to be subjected to when it goes through the processing equipment.
See this passage in Postal Explorer for a better detail of the requirements (DMM
101.1.2) …
https://pe.usps.com/text/DMM300/101.htm?q=diameter&h=diameter&t=H&s=R&p=1&c=DMM|QSG
There are even a few USB thumb drives that are thin enough to get thru letter
mail, but you need a thin cardboard frame to keep them oriented correctly.
Nita Rae
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Apr 7, 2021 08:18 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, calsbricks writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, tec writes:
| | My friend here likes this post
|
That's a beauty! I definitely need one of those.
Jen
|
Or you might want one of these 
|
Nope, I'm old-school analog all the way! Here's my scale....lol.
Jen
|
I'll see you ancient balance scale, and raise you a couple of USPS built
to last 100 years heavy duty scales. Both are in daily use in the Cosmic
Toys shipping department …
|
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | Apr 7, 2021 08:04 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Update:
Many of my measurements got rejected
Is it because of fractions? (0.5 0.66 ..)
My example was:
* | | 44567b Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side without Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge |
where W=1.67
|
|
| Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Apr 7, 2021 07:52 | | Subject: | Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | Just to note, you have snipped the image starting with the 2x4 brick but not
included its dimensions. I got confused with the first set of dimensions x, y
and z until I realised they are for the slope and not the brick.
|
Sorry about that. Here is another screenshot:
|
An observation, and not a criticism, the Z dimension (on the brick and the slope)
correctly includes the height of the stud on top, and because of that is not
directly convertible into brick heights (when measured in brick units). This
is because assembled bricks nest the stud within the bottom of the above brick.
And, as we all know, no one ever ships bricks assembled (but see below).
Which also, causes the rather oblique situation of hips/legs (which have studs
on top) and torsos, to not add up correctly in the Z direction, because of being
shipped individually.
Somewhere in all this (part II or part III ?) we need to address the issue I
pointed out a couple of weeks back about part-assemblies (e.g. wheels and tires)
and how they are measured for X+Y+Z and if assembling them is required.
Nita Rae
|
|
| Author: | msSquirrel | | Posted: | Apr 7, 2021 07:34 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9217-1 | | Viewed: | 14 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 9 Part 76371 Red Duplo, Brick 1 x 2 x 2 with Bottom Tube (Alternate)
Comments from Submitter:
sealed set content
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 7, 2021 05:40 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 9794-3 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 2 Part Black {6048 Arm Piece with Pin, 2 Fingers to 6048b Arm Piece with Pin, 2 Fingers and Finger Grooves}
* Change 2 Part Black {4085b Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with U Clip Thin (Vertical Grip) to 4085c Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with U Clip Thick (Vertical Grip)}
Comments from Submitter:
Both of Jonas' notes on this set turned out right.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 7, 2021 05:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9794-3 | | Viewed: | 16 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Turez writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Turez writes:
| | I would guess
[p=6048]
is in fact
* | | 6048b Arm Piece with Pin, 2 Fingers and Finger Grooves
Parts: Arm |
|
My picture came out terribly but it is good enough. Are the "grooves" the indentation
in my white circle in the pic?
|
Yes.
|
Then you went 2/2.
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Apr 7, 2021 02:51 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9794-3 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Turez writes:
| | I would guess
[p=6048]
is in fact
* | | 6048b Arm Piece with Pin, 2 Fingers and Finger Grooves
Parts: Arm |
|
My picture came out terribly but it is good enough. Are the "grooves" the indentation
in my white circle in the pic?
|
Yes.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
)
)
)
