 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad, Paul Easter wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Bernd Broich wrote:
> > Niels Karsdorp <nkp.nkp@hetnet.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:HGBE24.1IJM@lugnet.com...
> > > Sorry, i don't know who pneaster is, but he did put a hold
> > > on some primitives for differences in values. It's me...
> > >
> > > I would like to know how these values are to be calculated
> > > (and who calculated the correct values, me or pneaster)
> I have had a few emails with the Parts Tracker admin's lately to discuss the
> creation of primitives. I was INCORRECTLY using the rounding method that rounded
> only the final results. Like this; round( r* sin( Angle ), 4).
>
> The agreed upon method is r* round( sin( Angle ),4).
I assume that this apply also to parts? Or not, because parts (partsize) won't
be multiplicated as is with primitives.
I created the 9V curve 2867.dat with the 'incorrectly' rounding method witch is
pending in the parts tracker for certification.
Now i changed my VBA calculation utility too, to the agreed method and should
now recalculate all my calculations for the 9v train track point :-( or can i
still go on with the 'incorrectly' method?
>
> I am still not fully sure about another final rounding.
> in example; round( r* round( sin( Angle ), 4), 4)
> This is the current method I am using.
<SNIP>
Anyone else care to comment too?
Regards,
Ludo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad, ludo soete wrote:
> I assume that this apply also to parts? Or not, because parts (partsize) won't
> be multiplicated as is with primitives.
> I created the 9V curve 2867.dat with the 'incorrectly' rounding method witch is
> pending in the parts tracker for certification.
I think for parts, you can use either method -- because, as the part
author, you are responsible for making all the vertices match up.
The point with this discussion, is to support using primitives in parts
by creating the primitives in a way that will work cleanly with
'stretched' primitives.
How you get your vertices for polygons and lines in parts isn't as big
an issue.
> > I am still not fully sure about another final rounding.
> > in example; round( r* round( sin( Angle ), 4), 4)
> > This is the current method I am using.
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Anyone else care to comment too?
I'd go with the double-round method, but I'm not sure that it will ever
make a difference. That is, I think that:
round( r* round( sin( Angle ), 4), 4)
will always equal
r* round( sin( Angle ), 4)
Assuming r is an integer.
Steve
--
No FTX was harmed in the making of this message
| | | | | | |
