| |
In lugnet.cad, Ronald Vallenduuk wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> > > The 1 x 1 "cheese" slope
> > Yes, official http://www.ldraw.org/library/official/parts/54200.dat
>
> And also http://www.ldraw.org/library/official/parts/50746.dat
> According to the comments in 50746.dat:
> "54200 is used for moulding opaque parts, 50746 for transparent parts."
That comment is an oversimplification (and I helped put it there, so I feel
qualified to denegrate the statement a bit), but Ronald is correct in that
technically one should model transparent copies of this part in 50746 (without
fail), and should use 54200 for non-transparent, even though there is a
possibility that non-transparent colors were used for 50746.
-- joshua
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Ronald Vallenduuk wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Philippe Hurbain wrote:
> > > > The 1 x 1 "cheese" slope
> > > Yes, official http://www.ldraw.org/library/official/parts/54200.dat
> >
> > And also http://www.ldraw.org/library/official/parts/50746.dat
> > According to the comments in 50746.dat:
> > "54200 is used for moulding opaque parts, 50746 for transparent parts."
>
> That comment is an oversimplification (and I helped put it there, so I feel
> qualified to denegrate the statement a bit), but Ronald is correct in that
> technically one should model transparent copies of this part in 50746 (without
> fail), and should use 54200 for non-transparent, even though there is a
> possibility that non-transparent colors were used for 50746.
What is the purpose of having two versions? I assume that the transparent
version has all the internals accurately modeled so you can see them when light
passes through, but why not just use this one even when it is opaque? I am
obviously missing something. Also, when inserting the part in MLCAD, is there
any obvious way to tell the difference?
Eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Eric Albrecht wrote:
> What is the purpose of having two versions? I assume that the transparent
> version has all the internals accurately modeled so you can see them when light
> passes through, but why not just use this one even when it is opaque? I am
> obviously missing something. Also, when inserting the part in MLCAD, is there
> any obvious way to tell the difference?
It's primarily to capture all the part numbers from LEGO. So if someone finds #
XXXXX molded on their part, they'll be able to use that number in LDraw models.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Eric Albrecht wrote:
> Also, when inserting the part in MLCAD, is there
> any obvious way to tell the difference?
>
> Eric
Nope, 50746.dat is merely an alias to 54200.dat and as such the parts appear
identical in MLCad (and in any other editor one might use). If I recall
correctly, it was something to do with the plastic used to mold the parts but
don't trust me.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Santeri Piippo wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Eric Albrecht wrote:
> > Also, when inserting the part in MLCAD, is there
> > any obvious way to tell the difference?
> >
> > Eric
> Nope, 50746.dat is merely an alias to 54200.dat and as such the parts appear
> identical in MLCad (and in any other editor one might use). If I recall
> correctly, it was something to do with the plastic used to mold the parts but
> don't trust me.
You're spot-on Santeri. And the reason I said one might technically stick to
the "correct" numbers is two-fold: on the off-off-off chance some renderer were
to ever render based on the type of plastic (ABS versus polycarbonate), and also
Steve's point that the numbers might matter. There are also the item numbers in
the back of building instructions, which will correspond to one design ID or the
other. In that case, however, some of the LDRAW team have begun to create
shortcut files for Item numbers, and those tend to already take care of the
issue for you.
|
|
|
