 | | 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)
|
