 | | Re: KEYWOROD Meta-Command
|
|
(...) Desired. Unless it would only include redundant words. It's assumed that any text in the part's descriptive title, CATEGORY, and file name (or anywhere in the header, really), would be considered useful for searches, and wouldn't need to be (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: KEYWOROD Meta-Command
|
|
(...) It's an optional meta-command. Not all parts need keywords. Hope this helps. Franklin (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | KEYWOROD Meta-Command
|
|
Is the KEYWORD Meta-Command required or desired? Also, we should put a reference to these commands and BFC along with the rest of the topics in the PT Reference section in the Specifications section of the Reference category header on the Ldraw (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) Assuming some reasonable limit on the size of a number in digits (say 20 total including before and after the decimal place, that allows a very big and pretty precise number) isn't there sort of an upper bound on the line length likely to be (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) It's a weakness of the posting method (the file came in via email). I believe the line-wrapping was performed by Willy's email software. I recommend that all DAT content be posted via LUGNET's web interface, to avoid this line-wrapping issue. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
