 | | Re: What about BFC-ing studs? (was: Two questions on primitives)
|
|
(...) Sorry, I got distracted. I'll get back to BFC'ing and submitting those primitives. [snip] (...) You're working on an incorrect assumption here. Reflecting a subfile (ie, negating the multipliers for one dimension) will not invert the subfile. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) This is not an easy piece to begin with. You have the right to be proud. Great job! (...) Does it say LEGO inside the stud? If so, you should use the stud2.dat primitive. /Tore (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
When I downloaded this part, I can see that Lugnet's DAT download truncated the lines to 80 characters. This totally mangled the part. Is this a weakness of the Lugnet interface, or is it enforcing a standard? In other words, are part file lines (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round [DAT]
|
|
hi everyone, I proudly present my first part. I got the part-number from peeron.com. please let me know if I can use it or not. I'll submit the dat-file to the ldraw PT as soon as I get an userid. bye, willy 0 Minifig Shield Round 0 Name: x192.DAT 0 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | What about BFC-ing studs? (was: Two questions on primitives)
|
|
(...) Okay... if this is the case, then what's the status on bringing the less-primitive primitives into BFC certification? Take studs for example. Studs strike me as a great candidate for getting BFC'd because of the potentially huge payoff. Of (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
