 | | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) Hmm. That would look a little weird, to have LEGO floating slightly above the surface. It wouldn't *really* be noticeable, but still... I'd be inclined to ignore the slight indentation, and model the part as if the inside was the same height (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) Sorry for the mess, I'll fix my settings before I post my next part. Willy (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) I'm glad that you like it and get praise from a master author. Many thx. (...) primitive. Yes It does, but the problem is that I can't use a regular primitve 'cos the inner cylinder is 0,3 mm deeper than the cylinder on the outside. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: PT, part 2039 lamppost
|
|
(...) I did have some (offline, I believe) discussion with other authors at the time I made this, and came to the conclusion that this hole is not functional. Chris (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | PT, part 2039 lamppost
|
|
My two lampposts have small holes near the top, which aren't modelled in the current PT version (URL) They don't look like they're there (or big enough) for anything to be connected, so I'm not sure if they should be included in the part or not. (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 9V Track Crossing (32087.dat)
|
|
Hi, I updated my 'on the shellf' folder on Brickshellf with some new pictures from the 32087.dat part or better known as the Train Track 9V Crossing. (URL) have one question, before my first release. Go to this picture : (URL) see red ovals placed (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Rubber belts modelling utility
|
|
(...) I was imprecise. I was thinking of pulleys that are rotated 90º in relation to each other. It would look something like this in plan. (sorry for this bad diagram) Ox- "O" = big pulley "x" = belt "-" = pulley rotated 90º Or here's a good (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Rubber belts modelling utility
|
|
Hi Kyle, (...) ??? For pulleys in the horizontal plane it is easy to rotate the generated rubber belt 90°. Or do you mean something different ? Philo www.philohome.com (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Subpart 3811S02.DAT Island pattern for Baseplate 32 x 32 [DAT]
|
|
Here's the subpart for the large Island baseplate. 0 ~Subpart for Baseplate 32 x 32 with Island Pattern 0 Name: 3811S02.DAT 0 Author: Andrew Westrate 4 1 318 0 -2 318 0 -52 274 0 -53 274 0 -2 4 1 274 0 -2 274 0 -53 256 0 -57 256 0 -2 4 1 256 0 -2 (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | New Part 3811 Baseplate 32 x 32 with Island pattern [DAT]
|
|
Since I didn't have too much difficulty with the similar 16x16 baseplate, I've created the 32x32 Island baseplate from the Pirates line. Since there is already a pattern 01 for this part, I assumed this one could be 02, and named the sub-part (...) (23 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
