 | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) I can see how that wouldn't be desirable. (...) Correct me if I'm wrong (please!) But inlining only replaces the type 1 line with the (transformed) lines from the subfile it referenced. Right? It doesn't mean figuring out if 2 polygons could (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) I'm not a mech. eng. major, myself, so my knowledge of this CAD stuff is just from my math. skills. That said... As I understand it, a "primitive" is supposed to be an *atomic* unit, something boiled down to its essentials. A disc/circle (or (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) One thing you should be careful of, though. If you do inline it so that your new sub-part is used and doesn't reference any actual primitives, programs like L3P and LDView can end up displaying things with gaps. Both LDView and L3P perform (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm)
|
|
(...) Urk. I hadn't looked at the hook-hand file yet. I'd forgotten how ... unusual ... the orientation of the hand was. My opinion is, in this case, logic should prevail over continuity, and the hook-hand should be given a rational orientation. (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
Hello, in this case i would agree tp Franklin's opinion regarding using two ring instead of creating a new primitive because if we create a new primitive section for this you will have very big number of possible combinations (ring 1 +ring 2, ring 1 (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) It's all a compromise (just like life!). If you go creating primitives for every little sub-part that's used a few times, you end up with a primitive directory that's unwieldy & lots of parts which inline because they don't know the (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) As a program author, I believe that yes this would result in twice the polygon count. While I aggree that programs should generally do everything they can to make authoring parts easier, I also think that Part Authors ought to keep in mind (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) Wouldn't that result in twice as many polys that have to be rendered? Forgive if that's a dumb question, I ain't much of an author, you know. :-) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
This isn't necessary. Just use a ring3 and a ring-4, both with the same placement and orientation... (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | ring 3 to 5 [DAT]
|
|
Here is a new ring primitive with inner radius 3 and outer radius 5. I'm not sure what to name it, but I guess they should use something along the lines of what is used for the torus primitves. 0 Ring 3 to 5 0 Name: ring3-5.dat 0 Author: Mark (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
