Subject:
|
Re: New parts - missing stud2b and stud4b
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:24:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2235 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Sven Moritz Hein wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> > > If those are what I think they are, they're not allowed in official parts. The
> > > tiny hole isn't functional, so it was decided that the solid stud2 should be
> > > used instead.
> >
> > I don't understand why "not functional" is a criteria. Who says they are not
> > functional? The LEGO® Company? We, the AFOLs, already "invented" many snot
> > techniques LEGO never used. Are they forbidden?
> > As a matter of fact, it is possible to use the small holes of the underside
> > studs. A plume matches perfectly. I don't know any creations using this building
> > technique, but if you have a look at Michael Jasper's creations (for example),
> > plumes are very useful (e.g. for spilt beer:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1256146 )
> >
> > But still I understand why ldraw.org does not want this primitive: There are so
> > many objects that are available as two types: With and without holes. It'd be
> > much work to add a second version of all of them - and it would increase the
> > chaos. IMHO this hole is similar to the groove of a tile: It is a feature of the
> > element, but who uses it?
> >
> > So let's use stud2. But don't say it is not functional, rather say that MLCAD is
> > not prepared for something like this, for so many new parts with so few new
> > features.
> >
> > Leg Godt
> > Sven
>
> You make some good points, but I dont believe this is about the tiny holes in
> underside studs (LDraw primitive stud3).
>
> My original question was not about whether the side studs on 50238 should be
> solid or hollow studs, but about what Thomas intended by the non-existant
> stud2b. From his rendered images on BrickShelf, they are hollow studs and if
> that is how they are they should be represented by LDraw as such - stud2.
>
> On 50237, th missing primitive is stud4b - how does this need to differ from
> existing stud4 ring underside stud)?
>
> I don't have the actual parts yet, so cannot guess why Thomas needed to generate
> a third varient to stud2 and stud4.
when i created the parts, i believe i intended to use stud2.dat
just change the file reference to stud2 and stud4.
ill look into the stud4a and stud2a on my computer, i have 1000's of unofficial
parts and subparts here, when i made the part in MLCAD maybe it used that part,
im not sure if i caught that.
*edit*
i looked at the file of 52038, and the reference for stud4a is as follows
since i dont author to many parts im not to sure how the primitives go, however,
52038 has a stud 4 that goes about 8 ldu thru the bottom, with a 4-4cyli.dat of
8ldu, followed by a stud4a wich is the stud4 minus the inside cylinder. if thats
the correct part..
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New parts - missing stud2b and stud4b
|
| (...) [trimmed] (...) Thanks - I updated them to use stud2. (...) I updated your part to use a 4LDu cylinder, the stud4a primitive (underside ring stud without the edge lines) and added the outer edge line separately. Chris (19 years ago, 30-Apr-06, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New parts - missing stud2b and stud4b
|
| (...) You make some good points, but I dont believe this is about the tiny holes in underside studs (LDraw primitive stud3). My original question was not about whether the side studs on 50238 should be solid or hollow studs, but about what Thomas (...) (19 years ago, 28-Apr-06, to lugnet.cad)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
