 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
