 | | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) "A playground for perfectionists" Excellent summary of what I am trying to say. Most of us are not perfectionists even if we would like to be, and we don't have time to be perfectionists. But we do want useable parts. There is a step below (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) Looking at the comments so far we seem to be answering two different questions so I'm going to explicitly ask both of them: Should we try to model the idealised part? Should a part by held if it matches a real part but not an "ideal" part? Tim (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) My individual opinion (as opposed to the consensus opinion of the admins) is in general, I'd prefer the idealized pattern. Since mis-registrations cause many variations, it's 'better' to go for the middle ground. Since it's not always clear (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be? (loads of pics.)
|
|
(...) THINK they should've produced" and I correct any printing errors, like (...) misalignment, shades of color... In the past I had the same (...) the patterns I made and it cost me 2 month to get rid (...) Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with Rocket Launch (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Should pattern be like we -think- they should be?
|
|
(...) Hi Willy, In that case I would argue that the onus should be on the designer to choose whether or not to model the ideal or real pattern. If their part is a really weird one then it can be held but if all copies people can see are the same (...) (18 years ago, 16-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
