 | | Re: Is it important the difference of these parts?
|
|
(...) Apart different resistance to pressure, these 3 parts are also in the library for better coverage of lego history: 4085a is years 1981-1984 4085b is years 1985-199x 4085c is years 199x-2002 Having all variants allows to better convey nostalgy (...) (22 years ago, 23-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Wheels and axles
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Niels Karsdorp wrote: [snip!] (...) I couldn't figure out for what you need a part number. Then I couldn't figure out the grammatically proper way to word the previous sentence. Anyway, what part is it that you need a number for? Can (...) (22 years ago, 23-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC Ceritfied Parts Question
|
|
(...) Usually, but not always. (...) The key is that in BFC-land, the important part of the relation between the parent file and the subfile is whether or not the parent wants to invert the subfile. If the subfile has an obvious orientation (...) (22 years ago, 23-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it important the difference of these parts?
|
|
(...) The difference may or may not be important in the CAD world, but when it comes to construction there is a world of difference. The c variant is noticably stronger than either a or b if the clip is frequently "exercised". For example on any of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC Utility Inconsistencies [DAT]
|
|
The invisible faces cannot be seen in many other parts, so I think it's a primitive. Here's the 3001.dat I'm using: 0 Brick 2 x 4 0 Name: 3001.dat 0 Author: James Jessiman 0 Original LDraw Part 0 LDRAW_ORG Part UPDATE 2002-03 0 BFC CERTIFY CCW 0 (...) (22 years ago, 23-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Is it important the difference of these parts?
|
|
(...) To me personally it is not important at all. But the LCAD community is large, we use the parts librry in different ways, and I rest assured that for some people there is a good reason. /Tore (22 years ago, 23-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC Utility Inconsistencies
|
|
I personally edited 3001.dat to be BFC compliant. I'd be interested if it's not done correctly. If you have a Parts libray as of at least this past spring, I would think you'd have the 3001.dat that I 'fixed'... Well I think it got approved around (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC Utility Inconsistencies
|
|
Well, a lot of them. 3001.dat, box.dat ... They show invisible faces in BFCTool. Well, it's been a while since I've installed the original parts library that came with LDraw. Maybe some of the files have changed since then. I'll try that. Thanks, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | BFC Ceritfied Parts Question
|
|
I've notice a few parts on the Parts Tracker that are BFC certified, but some of their component primitives are not. Can justifiably I certify these parts? If I can, why? What if the part is BFC certified and then later on the primitive is BFC (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC Utility Inconsistencies
|
|
Do you have any particular parts that demonstrate the inconsistencies you are seeing? -Kyle (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
