Unofficial File parts/30078.dat

Next File | Prev File | Download | Review | Edit | CA Header Edit | Events

File Header:

0 Propellor  6 Blade  8 Diameter
0 Name: 30078.dat
0 Author: Philippe Hurbain [Philo]
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Part
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt

0 BFC CERTIFY CCW

0 !KEYWORDS fan, flower

0 !HISTORY 2007-08-25 {LEGO Universe Team} Original part shape
0 !HISTORY 2008-02-12 [Philo] Complete rewrite for LDraw Parts Tracker
0 !HISTORY 2013-04-25 [MMR1988] Reworked the main body

Status:
Needs admin review. (CCX)
Size: 17419 bytes

Reviewers' certifications:

MMR1988=novote
MagFors=certify
Philo=certify

Required (unofficial) subfiles:
(none)

Related (unofficial) files:
(none)

File reviews and updates:

At Tue Feb 12 14:16:02 2008, the file was initially submitted.
Submitted by: Philo
======================================================================
At Mon Jan 5 17:19:55 2009, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: novote
Comments:
I'd like to have "Propellor" changed to "Propeller"

======================================================================
At Mon Jan 5 23:10:25 2009, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: mikeheide
Certification: novote
Comments:
All other similar parts are called Propellor, so why not this one. I feel this is very ok.

======================================================================
At Tue Jan 6 11:24:08 2009, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: novote
Comments:
you are right. it is vice versa.
all officially released parts spell this "propellor".
thus, the parts on the PT spelling it "propeller" should be changed.

======================================================================
At Tue Jan 6 12:27:13 2009, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: Philo
Comments:
Added missing space in front of title numbers

======================================================================
At Tue Jan 6 13:12:01 2009, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: Philo
Comments:
Added missing space in front of numbers in title

Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Tue May 19 20:32:06 2009, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: hold
Comments:
please remove advertisement
"0 // Validation part courtesy of 1001bricks BL store"

======================================================================
At Wed Jul 22 21:49:38 2009, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: novote
Comments:
Removing hold on request by Chris.

I am still of the opinion that our parts should not get
contaminated by this which in my eyes is a kind of spam.

======================================================================
At Tue Apr 16 11:35:02 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MMR1988
Certification: novote
Comments:
Why there is a 1.25 scaling of
1 2 0 24.5 0 0 0 1 0 -1.25 0 -1 0 0 peghole.dat .
This avoid a using of this part in the "normal" raster...

======================================================================
At Tue Apr 16 12:55:03 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Philo
Certification: novote
Comments:
This allows to insert a Technic pin from bottom:
1 47 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 30078.dat
1 0 0 24 0 0 1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 1 2780.dat

======================================================================
At Tue Apr 16 15:10:13 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MMR1988
Certification: novote
Comments:
I checked it again, but no, there must be something wrong.
When I use this construction:
1 47 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 30078.dat
1 14 0 34 10 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 -1 0 3700.dat
1 0 0 24 0 0 -1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2780.dat
the propellor collides with the brick.

Imho, the peghole could be scaled by 1.
But I don't own this part. So it's only a feeling, that it seems to be wrong.


======================================================================
At Tue Apr 16 17:55:05 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Philo
Certification: novote
Comments:
OK, got your point. I'll check.

======================================================================
At Thu Apr 18 07:55:01 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Philo
Certification: novote
Comments:
Actually the real part is significantly more complex there. I can provide photos of the part, but considering the low usefulness of this part, I'd suggest simplifying it even more by removing completely the rib around peghole (I have no time now for this, anyone can step in...)


======================================================================
At Thu Apr 25 12:55:02 2013, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: MMR1988
Comments:
I removed some stupid edgelines in the center part and the rib around the peghole, too. I also removed the comment mentioned by Steffen in 2009.

Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Thu Apr 25 15:35:01 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: certify
Comments:
I'm unsure of the origin. Maybe it should be in the middle of the peghole.

======================================================================
At Thu Apr 25 19:35:11 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MMR1988
Certification: novote
Comments:
I haven't changed the origin.
Well, of course it would be possible to change this origin, but I think it is inspired by the "2 x 2 brick, round". So it is OK for me.


======================================================================
At Fri Apr 26 07:15:03 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Philo
Certification: certify
Comments:
Thanks, Max. Yes, the origin comes from brick heritage.

======================================================================
At Fri Apr 26 15:15:07 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: certify
Comments:
Only the topside is "brick-like", not the underside.
I just think that placement on a technic pin is a more common use case, than the need to put something on top of the studs.
But it's OK with me, if it'll be left as is.