Subject:
|
Re: How accurate need bricks to be?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 07:04:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1993 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Niels Karsdorp writes:
> I asked about the accuracy at the bottom of the bricks
> http://home.hetnet.nl/~niels-karsdorp/ldraw/question.htm
>
> Chris answered:
> > Yes, this is the "rule" we try to apply - if the detail is functional, then it
> > should be included, if decorative or an artifact of the moulding process then
> > it may be ignored.
>
> > Historically we have been even less concerned about the detail on
> > the underside of bricks (such as 700).
>
> In the case of brick 700,
> I know that the old versions did NOT have any tubes at the bottom.
> Is that something that should be modeled?
Yes, I believe the presence or absence of tubes should be modelled as this
does impact the functionality. The ribs are less important, IMHO, but if I
were modelling this part _now_ I would include them.
Chris
> I don't have any of those olde 700s, but I might locate one.
> (Hopy my grandparents still have the box of lego...)
>
> Niels Karsdorp
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: How accurate need bricks to be?
|
| I asked about the accuracy at the bottom of the bricks (URL) answered: (...) In the case of brick 700, I know that the old versions did NOT have any tubes at the bottom. Is that something that should be modeled? I don't have any of those olde 700s, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
