 | | high-res version of 3960 (4x4 radar dish) [DAT]
|
|
This file uses these two subfiles: "(URL) not posting this to the Parts Tracker 'cuz someone else (Paul Easter?) has already been working on a high-res version. But, in the meantime, here's an interim version you can use. Thanks, Franklin 0 Space (...) (23 years ago, 31-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) One other thing,[1] the primitives which are most commonly used with the INVERTNEXT flag/statement are the *-*cyli.dat files. All of these files (the regular cylinder primitives) have BFC'ed versions posted on the Parts Tracker. -- Steve 1) (...) (23 years ago, 31-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
Thanks guys. You cleared up my only question with BFC -Orion (23 years ago, 30-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) You've got it. When existing part files are made BFC-compliant, they have to be checked through completely. The main changes are fixing polygon wrapping and adding INVERTNEXT statements. Until a file is labeled BFC-compliant, renderers (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) Is this a real issue? Parts can't be truly BFC compliant until all of their subparts are BFC compliant. So yes, you'll have to insert those INVERTNEXT commands. But the part wasn't BFC compliant before, and this is just another part of (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
