|
 |
| | | Author: | bje  | | Posted: | Sep 6, 2020 03:48 | | Subject: | Catalogue Dimensions - please have standards | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Refer:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1220057
Would it not be simpler to write a guideline, add the catalogue dimensions for
odd sized parts and do away with this issue of having packaging dimensions added
once in lifetime by forum request?
The standard 2 x 4 brick has the following catalogue dimensions:
2 x 4 x 1
Its current packaging dimensions are:
16 x 32 x 11.2
The correct millimeter dimensions to 2 decimals are:
15.86 x 31.72 x 11.40
So:
DimX for 1 Stud: 7.93;
DimY for 1 stud: 7.93;
DimZ for 1 stud: 11.40
So by having the correct standard measure of the standard in LEGO terms (a 2
x 4 brick), now the stud measurement of any part can be worked out and added:
So for [p=66954c01]
we have 10.40 x 54.42 x 5.01
Catalogue dimensions: 1.31 x 6.86 x 0.44
Packaging dimensions as a result: DimX: 10.39, Dim Y: 54.40, Dim Z:5.02
There is still a minor rounding error, but that would still be infinitely better
than the nothing error we have at present.
And for it stays 2 x 4 x 1 or DimX: 15.86, DimY: 31.72, DimZ:11.40
That should then translate packaging dimensions as near as possible (personally
I would prefer catalogue dims to 4 decimals (for 1.3115 x 6.8625 x 0.4395 in
part 66954c* as above but lets not be pedantic) as soon as a member adds catalogue
dimensions. Certainly this will be much easier than the current cobbled together
system where some parts have odd dimensions and others not and where some parts
have incorrect packaging dimensions as a result of these not being tied to the
catalogue dimensions when added through forum requests.
[p=3626c] which is apparently not difficult to measure, but
* | | 3626cpb2589 Minifigure, Head Dual Sided Female, Reddish Brown Eyebrows, Glasses, Nougat Lips, Braces, Open Smile / Scared Pattern - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
is.
Then the only thing admin has to, by request, do in between everything else is
to mark defaults for volume and weight until such time as long suffering members
can request a change to that directly.
Here I'll help you
Catalogue dimensions must be added in relation to the actual measurement of
a part in millimeters as follows: W: 7.93mm = 1 stud; L: 7.93mm = 1 stud; H:
11.40 mm = 1 stud.
And then add a roadmap project to get these dimensions fixed along with the decorated
part weights asap, same form same time same approval. Easy.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 6, 2020 05:53 | | Subject: | Re: Catalogue Dimensions - please have standards | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
So:
DimX for 1 Stud: 7.93;
DimY for 1 stud: 7.93;
DimZ for 1 stud: 11.40
[…]
Catalogue dimensions must be added in relation to the actual measurement of
a part in millimeters as follows: W: 7.93mm = 1 stud; L: 7.93mm = 1 stud; H:
11.40 mm = 1 stud.
[…]
|
Er, no.
First, DimZ is not “stud,” it’s “brick.”
Then, 11.40mm includes the stud (tenon) and the logo on top, otherwise you’d
have something near 9.6mm. So if DimZ is Z bricks, it should be translated to
1.8mm + Z x 9.6mm, not Z x 11.4mm for bricks with top solid studs. Hollow studs
don’t have the logo, so it’s 1.6mm + Z x 9.6mm.
(I’m not using exact measures.
According to Jamie Berard, the logo adds exactly 0.14mm to a stud. He said that
in his famous presentation about stress, while explaining why a SNOT brick can’t
lie on a solid stud because of the logo but it can lie on a hollow stud. That
last remark means a brick-width (let’s call that 20LDU) plus a stud (tenon) equals
a brick-height (24LDU), which makes the stud (tenon) at 4LDU, so around 1.6mm.
By that I mean it’s in-system, not just “convenient for us to believe it is even
if it’s not,” like when many of us consider the Technic holes to be at the same
height as a side stud (which they are not), or the same diameter as an anti-stud
(which they are not either). But there’s also the side stud on 4070 which, while
being hollow, actually goes further than the brick’s enveloppe: you can’t put
a 4070 with the stud facing a solid wall / a brick, the stud don’t fit. *sigh*
Measuring LEGO is complicated.)
Further, the same kind of issue occurs to DimX and DimY: you divided the measures
by the number of studs but you didn’t take into account that a brick is actually
20LDU per stud minus a tolerance at each end.
If the bricks were exactly 20LDU (or 7.93mm or 8mm or any constant measure)
per stud, 1. you wouldn’t be able to put them side by side without a hammer,
2. if you managed it, they would “fuse” and you wouldn’t be able to remove them.
So there’s a little shaving on each end, on all sides, but, of course, not between
the studs.
The tolerance is not much, and is totally ignored for brick geometry (hence the
exact measure in digital bricks and the tricks used afterward to add seams),
but it’s important if you want to go to 4 decimals in mm.
But even if you correct that, your proposition doesn’t work for Duplo or Modulex
bricks: the 2x4 brick in these system have a catalogue dimension of 2 x 4 x 1.
And, anyway, the catalogue dimensions don’t include protrusions, like side studs,
clips, bars, balls, and so on. So, many of the dimensions in the catalogue are
wrong for System bricks too.
Now, what is to be preferred? Having wrong dimensions for shipping or having
no dimensions that would trigger the seller to check and set them?
Okay, the seller is more often surprised than triggered, and it seems many set
the dimension for themselves and don’t share them…. 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Sep 6, 2020 06:59 | | Subject: | Re: Catalogue Dimensions - please have standards | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
So:
DimX for 1 Stud: 7.93;
DimY for 1 stud: 7.93;
DimZ for 1 stud: 11.40
[…]
Catalogue dimensions must be added in relation to the actual measurement of
a part in millimeters as follows: W: 7.93mm = 1 stud; L: 7.93mm = 1 stud; H:
11.40 mm = 1 stud.
[…]
|
Er, no.
First, DimZ is not “stud,” it’s “brick.”
Then, 11.40mm includes the stud (tenon) and the logo on top, otherwise you’d
have something near 9.6mm. So if DimZ is Z bricks, it should be translated to
1.8mm + Z x 9.6mm, not Z x 11.4mm for bricks with top solid studs. Hollow studs
don’t have the logo, so it’s 1.6mm + Z x 9.6mm.
|
I should have defined what I am doing: make BL's studs measure in relation
to a sandard , thus making stud measurement relative to something measurably
constant. So a hollow stud part would be have a different measurement, by being
relative to a solid stud with a logo and measured against that.
| |
(I’m not using exact measures.
According to Jamie Berard, the logo adds exactly 0.14mm to a stud. He said that
in his famous presentation about stress, while explaining why a SNOT brick can’t
lie on a solid stud because of the logo but it can lie on a hollow stud. That
last remark means a brick-width (let’s call that 20LDU) plus a stud (tenon) equals
a brick-height (24LDU), which makes the stud (tenon) at 4LDU, so around 1.6mm.
By that I mean it’s in-system, not just “convenient for us to believe it is even
if it’s not,” like when many of us consider the Technic holes to be at the same
height as a side stud (which they are not), or the same diameter as an anti-stud
(which they are not either). But there’s also the side stud on 4070 which, while
being hollow, actually goes further than the brick’s enveloppe: you can’t put
a 4070 with the stud facing a solid wall / a brick, the stud don’t fit. *sigh*
Measuring LEGO is complicated.)
Further, the same kind of issue occurs to DimX and DimY: you divided the measures
by the number of studs but you didn’t take into account that a brick is actually
20LDU per stud minus a tolerance at each end.
If the bricks were exactly 20LDU (or 7.93mm or 8mm or any constant measure)
per stud, 1. you wouldn’t be able to put them side by side without a hammer,
2. if you managed it, they would “fuse” and you wouldn’t be able to remove them.
So there’s a little shaving on each end, on all sides, but, of course, not between
the studs.
The tolerance is not much, and is totally ignored for brick geometry (hence the
exact measure in digital bricks and the tricks used afterward to add seams),
but it’s important if you want to go to 4 decimals in mm.
But even if you correct that, your proposition doesn’t work for Duplo or Modulex
bricks: the 2x4 brick in these system have a catalogue dimension of 2 x 4 x 1.
And, anyway, the catalogue dimensions don’t include protrusions, like side studs,
clips, bars, balls, and so on. So, many of the dimensions in the catalogue are
wrong for System bricks too.
|
I'll be very honest, I did not think in terms of LUD, which is obviously
required, but having said that, the current system does not allow for the measurement
of parts with any meaningful use, other than in LUD terms. Take stickersheets,
I normally have to eyeball the dimensions and round up or down to get to the
nearest whole stud measure. The relative measure I was proposing is to take cognisance
of every conceivable part in relation to a standard, similar to 1 gram having
a relationship to the standard 1 kilogram.
However, as my suggestion would not change the dimension of any standard part
with no protrusions (which currently in LUD terms is 0x0x0), would it really
impact on LUD as a system measurement?
| |
Now, what is to be preferred? Having wrong dimensions for shipping or having
no dimensions that would trigger the seller to check and set them?
|
Having LUD measure and millimeter measures in the catalogue. That will probably
require the ever elusive programming resources to be freed up to make IC work
properly and to make the catalogue work for uses than packaging. I do not think
they want to use programming resources at this time, but, as one of the sellers
who paid a lot of school fees in learning how IC works, I can also tell you that
releasing a BL product called IC and then, a. not maintaining and, b. expecting
sellers to adopt it when there are no standards, no performance and no proper
help from BL's side, is also not quite acceptable.
| |
Okay, the seller is more often surprised than triggered, and it seems many set
the dimension for themselves and don’t share them….
|
It's not that, by the time you get the dimension problem, it already on the
order, so why bother? You will end up paying extra or cancelling the order or
making the buyer pay extra, whatever the flavour of the month is for a systemic
BL failing. When you delete lots like I do, it is also a massive pain to relist
and then remember to add manual dimensions, so you end up paying again.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 6, 2020 08:13 | | Subject: | Re: Catalogue Dimensions - please have standards | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
I should have defined what I am doing: make BL's studs measure in relation
to a sandard , thus making stud measurement relative to something measurably
constant. So a hollow stud part would be have a different measurement, by being
relative to a solid stud with a logo and measured against that.
|
But that still doesn’t take care of the “fixed” part: however high is a brick,
there’s only one stud on top.
My point was that it’s not Z x 11.4, it’s Z x 9.6 + 1.8 (or 1.6) or even Z x
9.6 + 1.8 - tolerance.
With correct measures, not exactly 9.6 or 1.8….
Which lead to my parenthesis: we don’t know what these values are supposed to
be exactly IRL, only in “brick geometry,” the “system,” and even that is sometimes
contradicted by RL.
| | […]
I'll be very honest, I did not think in terms of LUD,
|
LDU = LDraw Unit.
I used them to not have to repeat “1 stud,” “1 brick,” because you always need
to specify what you’re talking about (a stud is a tenon, and the distance between
two tenons, … and a horse) and without using a real-life unit, like mm, because
then you have the discussion: “it’s not 8mm, it’s 7.93mm, no it’s 7.95mm, etc.”
I could have used “module” like LEGO or L like in descriptions here. 1M =
20LDU = 1L
LDU are useful in a perfect world (digital) and for brick geometry.
And by brick geometry, I mean the calculations one does for SNOT or trigonometry:
2 brick-width = 5 plate-heights and such.
The distance between the center of two tenons is exactly 20LDU, a brick’s height
is 24LDU, a plate’s height is 8LDU, etc., whatever the exact value of an LDU
is in mm IRL, those are constants.
Anyway, what I meant was the perfect width of a 1x brick is 20LDU (1M, 1L, 1stud)
but a real 1x brick is not 20LDU-wide, and a real Nx brick is not N times the
real width of a 1x brick.
So, one can’t just say “a 1 x 1 x 1 brick is A x B x C therefore a X x Y x Z
part is XA x YB x ZC.” This only works in a perfect world.
Or for a rough approximation.
Otherwise, frankly, LDU isn’t a unit I would recommend to use to show measures
in the catalogue.
M / L / stud aren’t good units either because a brick-height is 1.2 brick-width
but everybody counts bricks’ heights in brick-height. What would people say
when the 3001 is said to be 2 x 4 x 1.2?
And would they be the same people who are now upset because non-brick parts’
height (like flags) are measured in brick-height?
| | […]
| | Okay, the seller is more often surprised than triggered, and it seems many set
the dimension for themselves and don’t share them….
|
It's not that, by the time you get the dimension problem, it already on the
order, so why bother? You will end up paying extra or cancelling the order or
making the buyer pay extra, whatever the flavour of the month is for a systemic
BL failing. When you delete lots like I do, it is also a massive pain to relist
and then remember to add manual dimensions, so you end up paying again.
|
I also meant the system doesn’t encourage sellers to share.
When IC was only a suggestion, we asked for BL to open the catalogue so that
the community could fill in the shipping dimensions because we already knew the
catalogue dimensions were wrong and dimensions were needed for some postal systems.
And non-sellers could have contributed.
We would have had the time.
And it was asked again when IC came out. And it was replied “just post on the
forum.”
And then they made a separate topic so that we could just ignore the whole stuff.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Sep 6, 2020 09:54 | | Subject: | Re: Catalogue Dimensions - please have standards | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
But that still doesn’t take care of the “fixed” part: however high is a brick,
there’s only one stud on top.
My point was that it’s not Z x 11.4, it’s Z x 9.6 + 1.8 (or 1.6) or even Z x
9.6 + 1.8 - tolerance.
With correct measures, not exactly 9.6 or 1.8….
Which lead to my parenthesis: we don’t know what these values are supposed to
be exactly IRL, only in “brick geometry,” the “system,” and even that is sometimes
contradicted by RL.
|
Which is why the standard is set to the current 2 x 4 brick with solid
studs and a logo on top. The kilogram has changed with time, but the basic use
of a gram has not - it is still 1 gram in relation to a kilogram. So in that
system will the fixed part not be fixed with everything revolving around it,
similar to cg, dg to a kg, which can change over time to accommodate changes
in the basic measurement unit? Nobody knew what a kilogram was as a measurement
standard until somebody decided to determine exactly what it means. Just so,
if we do not know what the measurement unit of a part is in relation to another
part, we make the standard.
Given that currently the catalogue cannot accommodate actual mm measurements
but only a BL stud measurement. And we change the standard over time to accommodate
changes in the standard.
To get back to hollow stud vs solid stud:
If you cannot use the one part in LDraw at present because it differs, how would
having a measurement of both those parts in relation to a 2 x 4 brick change
things in LDraw?
| |
| | […]
I'll be very honest, I did not think in terms of LUD,
|
LDU = LDraw Unit.
|
Typo, thank you
| | I used them to not have to repeat “1 stud,” “1 brick,” because you always need
to specify what you’re talking about (a stud is a tenon, and the distance between
two tenons, … and a horse) and without using a real-life unit, like mm, because
then you have the discussion: “it’s not 8mm, it’s 7.93mm, no it’s 7.95mm, etc.”
I could have used “module” like LEGO or L like in descriptions here. 1M =
20LDU = 1L
LDU are useful in a perfect world (digital) and for brick geometry.
And by brick geometry, I mean the calculations one does for SNOT or trigonometry:
2 brick-width = 5 plate-heights and such.
The distance between the center of two tenons is exactly 20LDU, a brick’s height
is 24LDU, a plate’s height is 8LDU, etc., whatever the exact value of an LDU
is in mm IRL, those are constants.
Anyway, what I meant was the perfect width of a 1x brick is 20LDU (1M, 1L, 1stud)
but a real 1x brick is not 20LDU-wide, and a real Nx brick is not N times the
real width of a 1x brick.
So, one can’t just say “a 1 x 1 x 1 brick is A x B x C therefore a X x Y x Z
part is XA x YB x ZC.” This only works in a perfect world.
Or for a rough approximation.
|
But you have that exact system in use for all standards. I might not have enough
knowledge so I might be making a moot point, but you have no current measurement
to use in LDraw for a modified part, so how would having stud measures related
to a 2 x 4 brick or whatever other standard, change things in LDraw or anywhere
else? If you have never had the use of the part in LDraw because the measurements
are wrong or non-existent or not being carried over from BL to LDraw, then having
measurements in relation to something else, is still not going to change matters
for any user of LDraw or any useful discussion about the size of a modified part.
| |
Otherwise, frankly, LDU isn’t a unit I would recommend to use to show measures
in the catalogue.
|
Me neither. It is only the users' catalogue sometimes...
| | M / L / stud aren’t good units either because a brick-height is 1.2 brick-width
but everybody counts bricks’ heights in brick-height. What would people say
when the 3001 is said to be 2 x 4 x 1.2?
|
What did people say when their 10 000 acre farms became 4046.86 hectares, because
we decided to standardise to a decimal system and did not want to use chains
and furlongs any longer? I'm sure there were oddballs who thought the government
stole some of their land by making it smaller.
| | And would they be the same people who are now upset because non-brick parts’
height (like flags) are measured in brick-height?
|
The same thing people said when flagpoles started getting measured in meters
and not feet?
| |
And it was asked again when IC came out. And it was replied “just post on the
forum.”
And then they made a separate topic so that we could just ignore the whole stuff.
|
They've added another topic - "X" suffix. So now you have two topics to ignore...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Sep 6, 2020 15:15 | | Subject: | Re: Catalogue Dimensions - please have standards | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
Which is why the standard is set to the current 2 x 4 brick with solid
studs and a logo on top. The kilogram has changed with time, but the basic use
of a gram has not - it is still 1 gram in relation to a kilogram. So in that
system will the fixed part not be fixed with everything revolving around it,
similar to cg, dg to a kg, which can change over time to accommodate changes
in the basic measurement unit? Nobody knew what a kilogram was as a measurement
standard until somebody decided to determine exactly what it means. Just so,
if we do not know what the measurement unit of a part is in relation to another
part, we make the standard.
Given that currently the catalogue cannot accommodate actual mm measurements
but only a BL stud measurement. And we change the standard over time to accommodate
changes in the standard.
|
But it’s a simple, direct scale. Studs aren’t a direct scale. That’s all what
I’m saying.
Here you are saying “a brick height is 11.4mm.” And that we can change the 11.4mm
to 11.35mm or anything else whenever we feel the need.
But precision isn’t the issue I’m pointing.
What I’m pointing is that you are working as if 2453b were 5x11.4mm = 57mm high.
But it’s 5x9.6mm + 1.8mm = 49.8mm high.
So you need to define your brick height as “9.6mm + 1.8mm,” not “11.4mm.” (With
correct measures instead of the perfect 9.6mm and 1.8mm.)
And, in the same way, the brick width or stud isn’t “7.93mm,” it’s “7.99mm -
0.06mm” (or whatever the exact measures are).
| | To get back to hollow stud vs solid stud:
If you cannot use the one part in LDraw at present because it differs, how would
having a measurement of both those parts in relation to a 2 x 4 brick change
things in LDraw?
[…]
But you have that exact system in use for all standards. I might not have enough
knowledge so I might be making a moot point, but you have no current measurement
to use in LDraw for a modified part, so how would having stud measures related
to a 2 x 4 brick or whatever other standard, change things in LDraw or anywhere
else? If you have never had the use of the part in LDraw because the measurements
are wrong or non-existent or not being carried over from BL to LDraw, then having
measurements in relation to something else, is still not going to change matters
for any user of LDraw or any useful discussion about the size of a modified part.
|
I don’t get what you’re saying about usability.
LDraw is a perfect in-System world. Everything is measured in LDUs but that’s
just a multiple of the sacrosanct Module.
The parts descriptions / names are similar to those of BL: “Brick 1 x 1 x
5 with Hollow Stud” and “Brick 1 x 1 x 5 with Solid Stud”.
Both, without studs, are exactly 20 LDU wide and 120 LDU high. And one has a
hollow stud, the other a solid stud (obviously).
LDraw works in the perfect LEGO System, it doesn’t really care about real world
measures.
When a new attachement is created by LEGO, it’s of course measured. But it’s
not directly modelized in these measures. Its workings in the holly System are
first devised and LDraw uses the perfect, rounded measures.
Say, if the plate with clip 61252 was invented today, LDraw wouldn’t place the
clip’s centre at 2.35mm high from the base of the plate, 3.94mm afar from the
border, and wouldn’t set its internal diameter to 3.18mm as the exact measures
IRL would say. The centre would be placed at 6LDU high from the base and 10LDU
afar from the border of the perfect 20 x 20 x 24LDU plate, and its diameter would
be 8 LDU (a plate). That way, when you couple it with a 26047, the studs on
the plates are exactly 40 LDU (2 M) apart.
All neat and perfect.
So you can define the 2x4x1 brick to whatever real-world measures you want, the
System will still be the System.
| | […]
| | M / L / stud aren’t good units either because a brick-height is 1.2 brick-width
but everybody counts bricks’ heights in brick-height. What would people say
when the 3001 is said to be 2 x 4 x 1.2?
|
What did people say when their 10 000 acre farms became 4046.86 hectares, because
we decided to standardise to a decimal system and did not want to use chains
and furlongs any longer? I'm sure there were oddballs who thought the government
stole some of their land by making it smaller.
| | And would they be the same people who are now upset because non-brick parts’
height (like flags) are measured in brick-height?
|
The same thing people said when flagpoles started getting measured in meters
and not feet?
|
What I meant is that it’s both confusing and practical to use stud x stud x brick
and it would be both confusing and (im)practical to use whatever x whatever x
whatever.
Especially if BL continues not to show the units correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Africa, Western Cape
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
