 | | Re: Why aren't the technic gear teeth primitives?
|
|
(...) If they were designed properly, the tooth profiles will be different between the 8t, 24t, etc. gears. The tooth profile of a gear follows an involute curve, which means the profile is the involute of a base circle slightly smaller than the (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Why aren't the technic gear teeth primitives?
|
|
(...) editing (...) The teeth on the small 8 tooth gear are slightly different from the larger ones(Though in the file they are pretty much drawn as trapezoidal boxes). But on the two beveled gears they apear practicly identical as far as I can (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) I'm concerned that if we release those primitives that can be used as both inside and outside surfaces as BFC complient, we'll have to go back to all the other pieces that use them to insert the INVERTNEXT directive (where appropriate). (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Why aren't the technic gear teeth primitives?
|
|
(...) Are the teeth the same between different parts? If they are different, it doesn't make much sense to have primitives for each one. Even if the teeth are different, it would be possible to make subfiles for the teeth. This could make sense for (...) (23 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) There's no 1-16cyli.dat primitive because it hasn't been needed/asked for. The general approach is to not introduce primitives until they're needed. Steve (23 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part - 2587 Knights Armor
|
|
"Chris Dee" <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:GtnGow.LJJ@lugnet.com... (...) You are right, there is a difference. I would say that we could life with that. The head should be at -28 an the helmet at -29 LDU, so the difference (...) (23 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Why aren't the technic gear teeth primitives?
|
|
I was thinking that the teeth for the old technic gears (3647-1649) and the beveled ones (32270 and 32296) should be made into primitives. I tried editing the 3648 part in ldraw, but the file was too big to even load! (23 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) The INVERTNEXT directive takes care of this problem. Quoted from BFC proposal: "INVERTNEXT This option inverts a subfile. It may only be used immediately before a subfile command line, and it only influences the immediately following subfile (...) (23 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Two questions on primitives
|
|
Two questions (if these have already been discussed, just direct me to the appropriate LUGNET post): 1.) I've noticed the new BFC complient primitives on the Parts Tracker. How are we going to resolve the fact that the cylindar primitve can be used (...) (23 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part - 2587 Knights Armor
|
|
(...) I tried this with real parts and find that there is a conflict in real life. If I put the head on the torso+armour first then add the helmet then the chin strap does not go as far below the grin as when I put the helmet on the head alone. If I (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
