 | | Re: Question about "stickers"
|
|
(...) You make the sticker whatever size it actually is. If it's 40 LDU wide and extend to the edges then that's what you make. A sticker is just like any other part: it must be modelled as close to the real life part as possible (including size). (...) (19 years ago, 13-Aug-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about "stickers"
|
|
(...) Hi Mark, I agree with Tim. I don't think this should be a set standard, you should make the stickers a size that looks good. In your case, I think I prefer the 1LDU inset, but it's really up to you. The 0.25 LDU is just to try & make sure the (...) (19 years ago, 12-Aug-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about "stickers"
|
|
I am also not on the LSC but I think that Tim's remarks make a lot of sense. (19 years ago, 12-Aug-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about "stickers"
|
|
(...) --SNIP PIC-- Hi Mark, I would assume that if it is a user created sticker you can put it where you want. For official stickers I assume you make them the same size as the original sticker. Which sort do you mean? I suspect the 0.25 LDU is (...) (19 years ago, 12-Aug-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Question about "stickers"
|
|
So far, the only standard I've found about modeling sticker "parts" is that they should be 0.25 LU off the surface of the piece they will be "stickered" to. What about width & length compared to the surface? I.E: sticker for shields - should they (...) (19 years ago, 12-Aug-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: have these pieces been CADed?
|
|
(...) It's worth noting that the parts aren't certified yet, and in fact have a hold vote in their common sub-file. So if the next official update is soon, then it's probably unlikely that these parts will be in it. --Travis (19 years ago, 29-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: have these pieces been CADed?
|
|
(...) No, the primary PT admin (Chris Dee) has been off on holiday until recently. -Orion (19 years ago, 29-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: have these pieces been CADed?
|
|
Let's just hope that not too much time and energy goes into this 'steering committee election thingy... (URL) (19 years ago, 29-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: have these pieces been CADed?
|
|
(...) Read this: (URL) Niels (19 years ago, 29-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: have these pieces been CADed?
|
|
(...) (URL) good right link>. (URL) good left link> (...) thanks! any idea when they'll be official? i figured they were by now & i just didn't get the update. also, any idea when the next official update will be on Ldraw? Jeff (19 years ago, 29-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: have these pieces been CADed?
|
|
(...) Mmhhh... bad link for left part. Here is the good one: (URL) (19 years ago, 28-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: have these pieces been CADed?
|
|
Should be: (URL) left> and (URL) right>. Oops! :) (19 years ago, 28-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: have these pieces been CADed?
|
|
(URL) left> and (URL) right>. (19 years ago, 28-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | have these pieces been CADed?
|
|
i can't seem to find files for these on LDraw, Peeron, or on the reference pages here @ LUGnet. (2 URLs) Jeff (not Lcad experinced to draw either) (19 years ago, 28-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Type numbering of parts with different types
|
|
(...) Well, first off, using 'Type X' should be the notation of last resort. The prefered way to note variations of parts is to include a descriptive notation. Sometimes, a descriptive notation is not practical (for whatever reasons). In this case, (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Type numbering of parts with different types
|
|
When reviewing some parts with different types, I noticed some had the type number in arabic numbers (like 'Type 1', 'Type 2') in the part titles, while others used roman numbers (like 'Type I, 'Type II'). For consistancy, what kind of numbering (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New part: Trailer Base 4 x 16 x 1
|
|
(...) I have only looked at the official parts library and the parts tracker to see if this part existed. (...) Yes, my part is BFD:ed and uses the latest primitives and has the same kind of orientation as the other trailer base of that time (...) (19 years ago, 23-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New part: Trailer Base 4 x 16 x 1
|
|
(...) We can use the part number x726, which I already have "reserved" for this part. See (URL) I assume your part is BFD:ed and makes much better use of primitives than mine, originally authored back in 1998. Most likely better oriented than mine, (...) (19 years ago, 23-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New part: Trailer Base 4 x 16 x 1 [DAT]
|
|
Tore made the ramp and I find it good enuf. .dat attached... (URL) 0 Ramp for trailer 0 Name: 727.dat 0 Author: Tore Eriksson 0 Unofficial Element 0 KEYWORDS Legoland 2 20 0 78 20 -5 90 2 24 -20 0 78 -20 -5 90 2 24 20 -5 90 20 -5 78 2 24 -20 -5 90 (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | New part: Trailer Base 4 x 16 x 1
|
|
I have created another new (old) part: Trailer Base 4 x 16 x 1 It's on the parts tracker as x510.dat (URL) left out the inforcementrib underneat, which is nonfunctional in CAD. I used the same orientation as the other trailer base (968.dat). (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jul-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
