 | | what's wrong with the POTM email?
|
|
I was intending to submit 61810.dat to the POTM contest (well, OK, little are my chances, probably, but you never know :) ) though I can't send the email: (...) I did double-check that I'm using the right email address, even sent it another time but (...) (15 years ago, 26-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: naming for some half-primitives
|
|
(...) I see. I shall use those, then. (15 years ago, 26-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: naming for some half-primitives
|
|
(...) Please just use the next available axlehoXX and npegholX numbers; axleho10.dat (thats one-zero not ell-zero), npeghol8.dat and npeghol9.dat. I want to sort out a better naming convention for these, but I don't want to hold up creativity. Chris (...) (15 years ago, 26-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | naming for some half-primitives
|
|
I've got a little little problem with primitives. I'm working on the 61808.dat file (I guess I'll do it with 61811.dat parallel...), and to ease it up and to save disk space the file will be in four quarters. So, to have such things, you inevitably (...) (15 years ago, 26-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Fixing the liftarms
|
|
(...) We are aware of this and do have a plan to rectify it. Steve and I went through this a while ago, with a view to distinguishing between beams and lift-arms and consistently naming the beams. I recall our thinking was that "liftarm" would (...) (15 years ago, 24-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Fixing the liftarms
|
|
(...) Excellent Willy. That's awesome. I still hate the names but at least they're consistent. Tim (15 years ago, 21-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Fixing the liftarms
|
|
(...) When I standardized the headers of the certified parts at the PT back in August 2008 I tried to rename them as following: "1 x 1" are called Beams example: (URL) X 0.5" are called liftarm example: (URL) aware that only certified parts apply to (...) (15 years ago, 20-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Fixing the liftarms
|
|
Hi all (and especially Chris Dee), I find the inconsistency in the naming of liftarms in LDraw to be quite frustrating and was wondering whether or not it would be worth setting a standard name class and sticking to it. Here's a sample list: Technic (...) (15 years ago, 20-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
(...) Thanks. 30172.dat and 47847.dat will be posted soon, 30135 a bit later. Philo (15 years ago, 8-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
(...) Philo, I added the submission dates to the chart. Pick it from the list. w. (15 years ago, 8-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
Hi Willy, (...) What about the mention "0 !HISTORY 2007-08-25 {The LEGO Universe Team} Original part shape" for these new parts? Should we change the date? Philo (15 years ago, 6-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
(...) I woudln't bother pushing this. LEGO is being very nice to the fan community by providing us parts in LDRAW DAT format. I'd leave it at that. Jeff (16 years ago, 23-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
(...) For sure it would be best to get a file format closer from the original design (.stl for example), to be able to tweak stl2dat parameters for better results. Or to create directly POV versions... Philo (16 years ago, 23-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
(...) Mike, The LU Team submits directly in LDraw. As you can see in the header: 0 Created with stl2dat conversion tool they use Marc Klein's converter. It is known that TLG uses a heavily modified Maya to author parts. Bye, w. (16 years ago, 23-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
I'm curious as to what the differences between the format they submitted them to you are? For instance, do the models you've received have surface normals? -Mike (16 years ago, 21-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | L(EGO)Draw parts - 2nd batch
|
|
Hi folks, as an early X-Mas present the LEGO Universe Team has shared another batch of part shapes with the community, with the purpose to make them fit for the LDraw Parts Tracker. This time the focus is on Minifig Headgear but there are also some (...) (16 years ago, 20-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.announce)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) When the curvature is the only concern, then yes, but I have to take the screwshape into consideration, the closer I am to the ideal curve, the easier it is to calculate the screwshape and avoid holes in the part. Furthermore when thinking (...) (16 years ago, 13-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) Welcome back! (...) I agree with Mikeheide, since the total curvature is low I think 6 cones would be more than enough! (...) Seems a good approach. As for the edge line between screw and cones, Isecalc will provide it instantly! (It would be (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) I do not understand correctly what you are saying. If you use a cone primitive you can stretch it in all direction. There is no need to use "about 40 cones". A maximum of 10 should do the same! You should use for this the program "cones and (...) (16 years ago, 12-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: x210c01 ChromeSilver Drill 4 x 4 x 7
|
|
(...) Just to refresh my memory ( I haven't done any parts since 2951) The 48 primitives divide a circle in 48 straight lines, right? That would for a 60 LDU diameter mean that each straight line is approx 4 LDU's long, so using coneshapes each 4 (...) (16 years ago, 11-Dec-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
