 | | 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)
|
