 | | Re: Advice on hair pieces
|
|
(...) I noticed the 4th-batch part I worked on had a significantly better format. That must be why. It was missing some edge lines, but Edger took care of that handily. (...) Heh, I would've thought my idea of a utility was more radical. I'm not (...) (14 years ago, 17-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Investment for a home layout?
|
|
(...) Honestly I wouldn't even think about switching 9V if you don't already have a bunch. The IR track is far more versatile (and you can even build your own) balanced by the downside that you have to hide a battery box for power. Save your money (...) (14 years ago, 17-Sep-10, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Investment for a home layout?
|
|
I am using Bluebrick to design an abstract layout at 4.5m x 2.5m to simulate my home suburb. What I am trying to decide on is do I invest in the 9v track, use the current RC track (I have a fair bit thanks to the sets I have bought eg: 7939), or is (...) (14 years ago, 17-Sep-10, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Why quads? Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 4th batch
|
|
(...) I realise this is largely off-topic to the oriinal thread but I've always been curious why the use of quads is encouraged when just about every other format and rendering engine sticks to triangles. So the part author merges triangles into (...) (14 years ago, 16-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Advice on hair pieces
|
|
(...) Actually original parts only have triangles and have been merged by stl2dat (the 4th batch used a different concerter and no triangle to quad merge is done). That said, I had a look at m62696, there are only 5 non-coplanar quads, all within (...) (14 years ago, 16-Sep-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
