Subject:
|
Re: How accurate need bricks to be?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Sep 2002 02:08:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1193 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
> Historically we have been even less concerned about the detail on the underside
> of bricks (such as 700). There are so many variants on 1x and 2x bricks, none
> of which have any (known) impact on their functionality, that the parts library
> would be enlarged without enhancing its utility as a CAD building resource [1].
Another problem: by standards, LDraw bricks are modeled with the walls
being 4LDU thick. Most stud-hugging ribs on current versions of bricks
would not protrude outside of a 4LDU wall. So the ribs won't show
unless we make the walls thinner. Which we shouldn't do, because (at
smaller scales) this could lead to bleed-through problems in rendering.
> [1] However, its secondary (IMHO) purpose as a catalogue for precise part
> identification would be enhanced !
Very true. But I think a true Parts History db would be a better way to
obsessively[1] track those variations.
--
Steve
1) I mean 'obsessive' in a good way.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: How accurate need bricks to be?
|
| (...) 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. So in your two examples, I would expect to see the small lugs on (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.cad)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
