| |
> Many creations I have seen and built make use of rotating
> single-stud connections for articulated joints and odd
> angle mounts, so allowing an inherently non-rotating stud
> inlet is a flaw that should be avoided if possible.
Hi
I am currently working on my own version of LCD.
http://www.mr-bucket.co.uk/GLIDE/LCD_File_Format.html
I was thinking of adding some kind over-ride to the angle of movement for each
connection. This clinches it, I will. The format itself could hold single-studs
that lock at 90 degrees or similar as long as the editing programs can brake
these rules at the users request. The locking of angles is still useful
information to have even if its not always used.
LCD should be an aid to building not a set of rules that confine creativity.
For more info on GLIDE take a look at http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=11299
--Dan.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, Daniel Bennett wrote:
> > Many creations I have seen and built make use of rotating
> > single-stud connections for articulated joints and odd
> > angle mounts, so allowing an inherently non-rotating stud
> > inlet is a flaw that should be avoided if possible.
>
> Hi
> I am currently working on my own version of LCD.
>
> http://www.mr-bucket.co.uk/GLIDE/LCD_File_Format.html
>
> I was thinking of adding some kind over-ride to the angle of movement for each
> connection. This clinches it, I will. The format itself could hold single-studs
> that lock at 90 degrees or similar as long as the editing programs can brake
> these rules at the users request. The locking of angles is still useful
> information to have even if its not always used.
>
> LCD should be an aid to building not a set of rules that confine creativity.
>
> For more info on GLIDE take a look at http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=11299
To be truly correct, the restraints should also have tolerances, the one that I
would find most useful is technic axle in it's hole - there's quite a
significant clearance between them. Not sure the best way to handle such things.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
Ross Crawford wrote:
> To be truly correct, the restraints should also have tolerances, the one that I
> would find most useful is technic axle in it's hole - there's quite a
> significant clearance between them. Not sure the best way to handle such things.
>
> ROSCO
If this is a feature that is used deliberately and often enough
to motivate a software model for it, it would be possible to
encode a combination of hard constraints, demonstrating the
normal and preferred connection method, and additional means
for breaking those constraints within certain pre-defined
acceptable limits, to take advantage of the small tolerances.
If every connection would be allowed several simultaneous
degrees of freedom, we are in for some rather hairy problems
in structural mechanics, but it would be perfectly possible to
allow a user to deliberately break a single constraint within
reason, preferably also with real world knowledge that it is OK
to connect pieces like that and have them stay together.
However, I'm not sure that this is a feature that is used
often enough to motivate a software implementation of it.
Can you give some example of when and how you have used it
to your advantage in models?
|
|
|
