|
|
 | | Re: ring 3 to 5 [DAT]
|
| (...) Very true. In some cases (like the minifig arms), is it better to go with an all-polygon approach, or to use primitives as much as possible and fill in the rest with polygons? (...) When filling in around a hole in a flat surface, one should (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Models Under Review- 30044 & 30046
|
| Hi Everyone, Been a while since I've visited :) I noticed the two parts I submitted last year are still under review. I have fixed the duplicate line in 30046 'Window 1 x 2 x 2 & 2/3 Pane Lattice Diamond with Rounded Top'. I will resubmit that soon. (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | Re: Part x176
|
| (...) Argh! This is what comes of trying to run a world-wide subversive network single-handedly! Err, strike that. That was for some other newsgroups. Sorry about the bad suggestion. Your block of numbers is in the email. Steve (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) There are some complex curved parts (e.g. most of the minifig headwear, the minifig arm I'm working on right now, some wheels) where some regions can be represented by the regular cyli, disc, cyls, cyls2 primitives, but there will be regions (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
| (...) Yes, otherwise you get anomalies like this one: (URL) the outer ring of the tile got high-quality-ified but the fill in (non primitive?) circle didn't, leaving gaps. Also the plate below it, since it has stud cutouts, isn't as "round" as the (...) (22 years ago, 3-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
|
