 | | Re: new pattern - "Gasganno" face (Star Wars) [DAT]
|
|
Please LMKWYT! ;-) Thanks, Franklin 0 Minifig Head with SW Alien with Large Black Eyes Pattern 0 Name: 3626bpsb.dat 0 Author: Franklin W. Cain 0 Unofficial File 0 CMDLINE -c15 0 KEYWORDS face, big eyes, Star Wars, Episode One, Mos Espa, pod race, (...) (22 years ago, 1-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm)
|
|
If someone does re-orient the minifig hand, please let me know, so that I can update this new file correspondingly: (URL) DAT file for the minifig hook-hand)... Thanks, Franklin (22 years ago, 1-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Question on very old French flag (curved version, from '66)
|
|
According to the following link (URL) French flag seems red-white-blue from the pole and out, and not blue-white-red as it should be. Is this just an error in the booklet? Does anyone have this part so that it can be confirmed? Thanks /Tore (22 years ago, 1-May-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm)
|
|
(...) Yes, we definitely need a new hand. In addition to the hand to stem angle, we also need to fix the origin to make sense, like being along the axis of wrist rotation. -- Tony Hafner www.hafhead.com (22 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: is BOX5.DAT really BFC compliant?
|
|
(...) Hi Kyle, Also seems correct to me. Regards, Damien (22 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
