 | | Re: LDDP current version - BUG?
|
|
(...) I don't think so, as the official document ((URL) reads like this: Line Type 2 Line type 2 is a line drawn between two points. The generic format is: 2 <colour> x1 y1 z1 x2 y2 z2 Where: * <colour> is a number representing the colour of the (...) (15 years ago, 31-May-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDDP current version - BUG?
|
|
(...) Concave is not the same as co-planer. Co-planarity checks to see if all the points in the quad lie on the same plane (with in some tolerance). You can have a co-planer, concave quad. (...) Those are illegal type 2 lines as they have 3 points (...) (15 years ago, 31-May-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDDP current version - BUG? [DAT]
|
|
(...) I just checked an LDView reports concave quads. Can somebody explain that to me, as I believed it can be checked with planarcheck, but co-planarity is ok. One other thing. At part (URL) LDDP does not find any double lines. But there are double (...) (15 years ago, 31-May-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDDP current version - BUG?
|
|
(...) I just checked this part. The 2 lines in question look to be concave in LDView. -Orion (15 years ago, 31-May-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | LDDP current version - BUG?
|
|
I just came across the following problem. For part (URL) LDDP generate 2 error regarding planarity. Planarcheck does not. Anybody with similar experience? cu mikeheide (15 years ago, 30-May-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Looking for dimensions of LEGO bricks.
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Michael Horvath wrote: <SNIP> (...) Yes, the original design was British, so used imperial units. Chris (15 years ago, 25-May-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: DATHeader NEW as .NET application (version 2.0.1)
|
|
(...) I use it sometimes in the middle of part design to make sure I have a valid part header and be able to get smooth shading with LDView. Philo (15 years ago, 29-May-09, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Suggestion: !TYPE line
|
|
(...) Sounds logical, but if we would have that in this way we just could go and hard color the part. At this point you should not be so narrow to the real part. In our part files there should be only the geometric data defined. The color is defined (...) (15 years ago, 29-May-09, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Suggestion: !TYPE line
|
|
LEGO parts may vary in colour and pattern, but they are always of the same material. For example, there is no such thing as a Technic Axle 7 made of rubber or the Axle Flexible 7 that's solid, is there? Here I got an idea: have parts identify what (...) (15 years ago, 29-May-09, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.exe removed from distribution?
|
|
(...) I'd go with ldconfig.ldr. LDraw.exe is now legacy software (and is in fact not complaint with the current spec). Since ldconfig.ldr is per spec where color are defined, it should always be present in a 100% complaint distro. -Orion (15 years ago, 29-May-09, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DATHeader NEW as .NET application (version 2.0.1)
|
|
(...) If I would make the "Old Header" and "New Header" larger it would not fit good to smaller desktops. I am thinking of make to whole window able to maximise. That would then help both of us. At present DATHeader is designed to output a file that (...) (15 years ago, 28-May-09, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: DATHeader NEW as .NET application (version 2.0.1)
|
|
Hello, I would like to have larger components "Old Header" and "New Header". Often the header does not fit to them and you have to scroll down both lists. And, please, make replacing "0" comments by "0 //" as option. This feature kill mlcad hide (...) (15 years ago, 28-May-09, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDraw.exe removed from distribution?
|
|
Hello all, I just downloaded the complete.zip and discovered LDraw.exe is no longer present. I take this is a step in creating the 100% CA distro? Anyhow, I always used LDraw.exe to validate (in LD4DStudio) if a folder is indeed the library's root. (...) (15 years ago, 28-May-09, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Looking for dimensions of LEGO bricks.
|
|
(...) I was aware of the Kiddiecraft connection, and that TLC bought all the remaining rights from them at some point, but I thought the original Automatic Binding Bricks were a legally licensed copy/variation of the Kiddiecraft bricks. If they (...) (15 years ago, 28-May-09, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Looking for dimensions of LEGO bricks.
|
|
(...) That's hardly some freak coincidence. The original 1949 Lego brick was an unauthorized copy of the Kiddicraft Self-Locking Building Brick, invented by an Englishman named Hilary Page. When the Christiansens got samples of them from the British (...) (15 years ago, 28-May-09, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Looking for dimensions of LEGO bricks.
|
|
(...) Center-to-center, of course. The stud diameters differ by 0.028 between the drawings too, creating a diff of the gaps of 0.046 (but the length of the parts are exactly the same). (...) Well, the drawings are of parts, not molds (and the parts (...) (15 years ago, 27-May-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Looking for dimensions of LEGO bricks.
|
|
(...) That much? Wow. I figured the distance between two studs should be closer to 3mm, since a LEGO tile is (in theory) 3.2mm thick, and it will sorta fit between two studs. Or were you refering to the center-to-center distance? Anyways, one thing (...) (15 years ago, 27-May-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Looking for dimensions of LEGO bricks.
|
|
(...) I'm not at liberty to say too much, but I have actually looked at three real drawings of LEGO parts, and not even TLC seems to be sure what the dimensions should be - I've seen the distance between two studs dimensioned as 8 mm on one part and (...) (15 years ago, 26-May-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Looking for dimensions of LEGO bricks.
|
|
(...) I tried the experimental approach, built a long line of 23 x Technic beams 16 assembled with plates and measure the total length: 2937mm With 8mm distance between studs, the theoretical value is 2944mm, error is -0.23% With 5/16" distance (...) (15 years ago, 26-May-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Looking for dimensions of LEGO bricks.
|
|
(...) Huh. I was about to point out that a 48x48 baseplate is 15" per side, but it turns out it's actually just shy of 15-1/8". Conversion gets you 381mm based on a 15" baseplate, and 384mm based on an 8mm 1x brick, and that 3mm difference is just (...) (15 years ago, 25-May-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
