 | | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) When the curvature is the only concern, then yes, but I have to take the screwshape into consideration, the closer I am to the ideal curve, the easier it is to calculate the screwshape and avoid holes in the part. Furthermore when thinking (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive? [DAT]
|
|
I made a quick try - and it doesn't work very well, even when it should (between a cylinder and a cone). Example: (URL) (cedge primitive is here included). Cedge seems to behave correctly on the more sloped cone, but not on the other, it appears (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) I'll need to keep 3 dp in this case. But since it didn't smooth anyway I had no incentive to enlarge the file... (...) OK, we'll see if there is downsides to this. Maybe for very small details? Have a look at some fine mesh parts such as (URL) (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) Something to try. If it works it would help for several shading issues I have seen. See for example around peghole going through curved surface of (URL) Could you send me the LDraw file used to generate 61069s01a1.png? I'll see how (...) You (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Colinear Vertices
|
|
(...) triangle has had its surface normal pulled down. So the triangle isn't co-planar with the quad as far as the lighting is concerned. With curve smoothing, all polygons who share a smoothed vertex use a common surface normal for that vertex. But (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | LD4DStudio suggestions?
|
|
Hello all, I was wondering if people have some minor suggestions / bug reports for my current LD4DStudio version. Work on the 1.1 version is taking longer than expected so I was planning to release a bugfix only version this month. Any additional (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive?
|
|
(...) My comment about needing twice the geometry for the edge was based on a misunderstanding of what you wrote. Based on what I now assume you meant, two wouldn't be required for each joint. However, your solution would only work if the cones on (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive?
|
|
(...) It sounds like it would work, but I'm not sure if people would go for it. Of course, if the POTM competitions are anything to go by, you're making a majority of the complicated parts right now, so if you go with it, that's probably all we need (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive?
|
|
(...) Mmhhh... maybe by setting 2 conditional rings on the junction. Each condring would be set between a cylinder and a cone. Scaling the ring would adapt to various cone slopes. Of course 2 rings would be needed, one for converging cones, one for (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Conditional Ring primitive?
|
|
(...) That's a primitive I have been longing for... but I realized it is impossible to build: where would you put the control lines? The top control points would need to be scaled differently from bottom ones to match various cylinders/cones (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad)
|
