 | | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) Welcome back! (...) I agree with Mikeheide, since the total curvature is low I think 6 cones would be more than enough! (...) Seems a good approach. As for the edge line between screw and cones, Isecalc will provide it instantly! (It would be (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) I do not understand correctly what you are saying. If you use a cone primitive you can stretch it in all direction. There is no need to use "about 40 cones". A maximum of 10 should do the same! You should use for this the program "cones and (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) Just to refresh my memory ( I haven't done any parts since 2951) The 48 primitives divide a circle in 48 straight lines, right? That would for a 60 LDU diameter mean that each straight line is approx 4 LDU's long, so using coneshapes each 4 (...) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) None I know... (...) The official way is to ask a number to a LDraw admin. That said there are numerous parts on tracker named px... (would be px210c01 here) (...) Yes you should be able to use stacked cone primitives. As Travis suggested the (...) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) If you do find a way to use primitives, you'll probably need to use the \48 ones. I don't think 16 segments is enough for the thicker part of the drill, and switching from one resolution to another part-way along seems like it would be tricky. (...) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) Not that I know of. I'll think about adding a page to the LDView web site. (I don't think it's really appropriate to add it to ldraw.org, since it's LDView-specific.) (...) The precision is 0.0001. I multiply the coordinate by 10000 and then (...) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
Has anyone been working on this? I used the Peeron partnumber, would that be correct? I have determined that the shape of the "body" of the drill is extremely close to 5+(x+3)^(1/1.58), does any primitives exist that are useable for such a curved (...) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) Thanks, Travis. BTW, are there guidelines for part authors that would improve smooth shading? What about precision in coincidence between conditional lines and matching polygon sides? I have seen _many_ instances where a quad should blend into (...) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) I looked at LDDP sources (very clear BTW!). Threshold is compared against square of cross product of each angle of quad. So it depends of size of quad to 4th power! Not very good imho, but since it works for such a long time I used the same (...) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: SR 3D Builder version 3.2.2.3 just released
|
|
(...) MLCad keyboard controls are not supported since the user interface is totally different and parts are by far much more easy to place and connect MPD saving is not supported, but .L3B format is compatible with .LDR except for some metacommand (...) (16 years ago, 10-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Creator Adventcalender 2004 - Xmas Blog
|
|
(...) Oooo! What fun! Thanks for sharing this. I must admit, I miss the advent calendars like this, with simple pieces because I used to enjoy designing alternate models as the days went on. Remember 1998's set 1298? wow. ten years ago now: (URL) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Rendering for liberty
|
|
(...) Nice! You could also try wrapping a real photograph of the sunset around a sphere. -Mike (16 years ago, 10-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Rendering for liberty
|
|
I've been working on honing my skills at the whole rendering thing using many of the tools written by members of this forum and with knowledge gleaned here. I thought it was time to share! I asked my kids which model they would like me to use for a (...) (16 years ago, 10-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) It depends on what your threshold is but taking the difference (as you do in a cross product) of two big numbers is less accurate (very much so sometimes) than taking the difference of two smaller numbers. Even without this issue it means that (...) (16 years ago, 9-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) No, I just take the cross product, and if the length (squared) is 0, I give an error. I don't see how normalizing the length of the two vectors that I feed into the cross product would improve things much here. Sure, it might mean that my (...) (16 years ago, 9-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: SR 3D Builder version 3.2.2.3 just released
|
|
(...) Wow! Very impressive! I will definitely have to try it out. A couple of questions: are MLCAD's keyboard controls supported? Can I export back into LDR/MPD format? What does the model tree look like? -Mike (16 years ago, 9-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
--snip-- (...) I assume that you divide by the vector lengths first (as in normalise them before taking the cross-product) but if you don't then you should. Tim (16 years ago, 9-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) If they're on a curved surface, you'll get higher quality out of LDView half the time if you split them into triangles. (I say half the time, because OpenGL splits them into triangles in order to render them, and half the time they'll be split (...) (16 years ago, 9-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) As far as I can see the threshold is the number of digits that are used to determine wheather a value is the same as the other. So if you use 6.0 and 6.0001 with a threshold of 0.0001 the value are interpreted to be the same. That makes sense (...) (16 years ago, 9-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Opinions needed for Color and Edge Values
|
|
(...) Good timing on your response. We are going through the transparent colors now. I also agree that the transparent colors look washed out. I believe that the RGB values are how they would appear on a white background, but they do not render well (...) (16 years ago, 9-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
