 | | Re: Stretching cylinders [DAT]
|
|
(...) There is no way to get your shape using primitives, it would require non-linear transformations. So, as mentionned by Michael, the best way is to use Coverer. You can nonetheless get a similar (but quite different) shape using shearing as (...) (16 years ago, 15-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Stretching cylinders
|
|
Is this what you had in mind? (...) Basicly changing any of the non zero coordinates will scale along the coresponding axis. You can also accomplish shearing by replacing any of the zero's with a different number. (16 years ago, 14-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Stretching cylinders
|
|
(...) AFAIK there is no solution with primitives in this case. I would suggest use one of the tools from Philo ((URL) to fill the space between those 4-4edge.dat cu mikeheide (16 years ago, 15-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Stretching cylinders [DAT]
|
|
Well, it's my second thread today, but how would you go to "stretch" a cylinder, like a cone, but only in Y-axis, not X-axis? I've again attached a dat file to show what I mean. Basically I'd need a cylinder that'd fit those two 4-4edge.dat:s, any (...) (16 years ago, 14-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: cylt.dat
|
|
(...) Agh... guess it's going to take some time before I'll master those cyls.dat files. Well, this seems to save me a primitive. (16 years ago, 14-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: cylt.dat [DAT]
|
|
(...) As far as I can see the same can be build by 1-4cyls.dat like this: 0 Untitled 0 Name: Untitled.ldr 0 Author: Michael Heidemann [mikeheide] 0 Unofficial Model 1 16 -1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1-4cyls.dat 1 16 -1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 -1 1-4cyls.dat (...) (16 years ago, 14-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | cylt.dat [DAT]
|
|
Hello, I've been in need of a primitive something similar to a sloped cylinder, but something little different, so I made such primitive. I can't describe the primitive, though. You'll have to see it yourself. :-) What I'm concerned now is the (...) (16 years ago, 14-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Official Parts using MLCad colors
|
|
Hi folks, working on the LDConfig file (URL) came across official parts that use colors present in MLCad but not the still official LDraw color chart: (URL) to mention a few: Color 430: 3811p02e.dat Color 431: 973p2e.dat Color 485: 973p4t.dat, (...) (16 years ago, 10-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: searching for people that have 1966-1970 electric parts
|
|
(...) Can you please check the thickness of the pins of the cables. I think the red single connectors are a little bit thinner than the gray double connectors. If so, we have to care about the difference in building the LDraw-Parts. If I am right, (...) (16 years ago, 4-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: searching for people that have 1966-1970 electric parts
|
|
(...) (URL) 002 - have 2 in working condition. Dave K (16 years ago, 3-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | searching for people that have 1966-1970 electric parts
|
|
I am searching for people that still have the electric parts that where produced during the time 1966 - 1970. If you have such parts, please leave a note here. As soon as I have my questions totally clear I will then ask in detail. cu mikeheide (16 years ago, 3-Feb-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: need help with 61808.dat
|
|
(...) The thing is that I got this far, but I don't know how to proceed. It's kind of split into three... First, the "wings" that, when assembled, cover the pump. I don't know how long should I make the quadrilaterals. I tried measuring but there (...) (16 years ago, 29-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: need help with 61808.dat
|
|
(...) Please tell us more exactly what problem you run into. So we can help to solve your problem. cu mikeheide (16 years ago, 29-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | need help with 61808.dat [DAT]
|
|
Hey, I've been working on 61808.dat, the Nynrah Ghostblaster, though I've ran into problems with it, which should be quite obvious with a person who hasn't been modeling parts for long and a part as complex as this. I want to get this ready one day, (...) (16 years ago, 29-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: what's wrong with the POTM email?
|
|
(...) And what about LSC email? I have a few issues to submit but got a bounce back a few minutes ago :( Philo (16 years ago, 29-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: what's wrong with the POTM email?
|
|
(...) The motm address should now be fixed. -Orion (16 years ago, 29-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: what's wrong with the POTM email?
|
|
(...) As far as I know Dan and Orion are still working to fix the addresses after we had changes in the DNS. Please send your POTM submissions to my privat address at: ldraw[at]holly-wood(.)it Bye, Willy LDraw Contest Coordinator (16 years ago, 27-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: naming for some half-primitives
|
|
(...) Actually yeah, that's an even better approach... saves primitives. I guess I should do that instead. (16 years ago, 27-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: what's wrong with the POTM email?
|
|
(...) There is a problem with all email to the adresses that ends with ldraw.org. I also do not know exactly what is the problem, but it seems to be bigger because it is still not fixed. (16 years ago, 26-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: naming for some half-primitives
|
|
(...) If I have such a problem I use those primitives that are not presently available in the main file, while the other stuff goes into the subfile that I then use several times. cu mikeheide (16 years ago, 26-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (16 years ago, 26-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: naming for some half-primitives
|
|
(...) I see. I shall use those, then. (16 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 (...) (16 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 (...) (16 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 (...) (16 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 (16 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 (...) (16 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 (...) (16 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 (16 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. (16 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 (16 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)
|
