 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Liftarm width
|
|
Thanks Steve, looks like a good project to recreate them with the correct width and BFC-compliants. Philo (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | New Part : Was Re: 9V Track Crossing (32087.dat) [DAT]
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Ludo Soete writes: Hi, Here's the promissed Train Track 9V Crossing. It uses four subparts. Two of them are used in the Train Track 9V Straight, two are new. Those subfiles are: 2865s04.dat 2865s06.dat 32087s01.dat (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Liftarm width
|
|
(...) Yes, liftarm parts should be 18 LDU wide. Skinny liftarms should be 10 LDU tall, full-liftarms (aka, smooth beams) should be 20 LDU tall. Steve (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part - 2587 Knights Armor [DAT]
|
|
Hi all, I tested my armor in ensemble wtih a helmet and what I had to notice, there is a ovelapping with it. I looked at the real parts and I found that the helmet is in the bottom to sloping. Look here: 1 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2587.dat 1 1 0 0 (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Rubber belts modelling utility
|
|
Hi Kyle, (...) ... but I should have understood ! (...) (URL) I'll have a look at it if I find time (trigonometry is a little more tricky here...) (...) Yes, I think so too - though the two axis rotation of straight parts might not be so easy. (...) (23 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
