 | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) I can see how that wouldn't be desirable. (...) Correct me if I'm wrong (please!) But inlining only replaces the type 1 line with the (transformed) lines from the subfile it referenced. Right? It doesn't mean figuring out if 2 polygons could (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) I'm not a mech. eng. major, myself, so my knowledge of this CAD stuff is just from my math. skills. That said... As I understand it, a "primitive" is supposed to be an *atomic* unit, something boiled down to its essentials. A disc/circle (or (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) One thing you should be careful of, though. If you do inline it so that your new sub-part is used and doesn't reference any actual primitives, programs like L3P and LDView can end up displaying things with gaps. Both LDView and L3P perform (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm)
|
| (...) Urk. I hadn't looked at the hook-hand file yet. I'd forgotten how ... unusual ... the orientation of the hand was. My opinion is, in this case, logic should prevail over continuity, and the hook-hand should be given a rational orientation. (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| Hello, in this case i would agree tp Franklin's opinion regarding using two ring instead of creating a new primitive because if we create a new primitive section for this you will have very big number of possible combinations (ring 1 +ring 2, ring 1 (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
|
