 | | Re: is BOX5.DAT really BFC compliant?
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) No, it's correct. Keep in mind that this polygon forms the *bottom* of the box, so it is facing downward. In the default view, you will actually be looking at the backside of this quad. Imagine being under the primitive, and (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | is BOX5.DAT really BFC compliant?
|
|
I've been working on the BFC code in my application, and well, either I need to go to bed now (which is probably true either way :) or the BOX5.DAT primitive slipped into the last update with wrong-way wound quad. Am I reading this right? (...) This (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm)
|
|
(...) Well, at first glance, using a spear as pointer, it looked like 17 degrees to me also. However, I did the following and came up with 14.5 degrees: 1. Lay a minifig up next to a piece of paper, with the hand in the up position and a spear in (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm)
|
|
(...) I might have talked about it, but I'm not doing anything on it right now. Feel free to run with it. :) (...) I think I measured it at 17 degrees once, but I might have mis-measured (or be misremembering). Or maybe Tore told me that was the (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Part x176
|
|
(...) The "x" is a temporary prefix, indicating that it's a new part for which we don't know the real part number. If we don't find the real number before the new file is made official, the "x" is dropped. There's no point in having an "xnnn" number (...) (22 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Part x176
|
|
(...) Is there any reason an "x" number cannot co-exist with a matching "real" number? Surely, if the correct number is subsequently obtained, the "xnnn" can be changed to a "moved-to" stub. Is this just to avoid confusion? (...) OK. Ta. ROSCO (22 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm)
|
|
Sorry, all, :] I forgot Steve Bliss already briefly mentioned redoing the hand, so ignore anything in my post that sounds like I'm the only one who ever thought of it. :) But since the arm has now gotten attention from Chris Dee (thanks, Chris!), I (...) (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm)
|
|
I wonder if it would be worth it to re-make the minifig hands too. The hand should tilt away from the hand "stem" at an angle of about 15 degrees. Right now, to get the correct angle of the hand to the arm, the hand has to be tilted so the solids (...) (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm
|
|
(...) Thanks (and thanks to others who commented, too), I'll continue with the more difficult sections. The new arm part is orientated with its axis of rotation at y=0, z=0, so to test in different positions you'll need to rotate the new part about (...) (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm
|
|
Wow- that's beautiful! I'm very glad to see this- I didn't really *want* to do the part myself, but it seemed to need doing. I'll try fiddling with it in various positions. It's great to have a center of rotation that actually works. Are you (...) (22 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
