Subject:
|
Re: New Part: 3437peye.dat: Duplo Brick 2 x 2 with Eyes Pattern on Two Sides
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:49:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
824 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Tony Hafner wrote:
> Here is a Duplo 2x2 with eyes on both sides. It's a fairly common piece,
> and I thought it would be a great first printed piece for me to do from scratch.
It looks very nice! Very good job, especially as it's your first time
doing a printed part.
> I don't know why I thought this was a good piece to start with. This was a
> major pain, what with all the negative curves inside other curves... but it
> looks great!
One minor thing, the description of which is kinda longwinded, sorry. It's
generally better to lay out complex surfaces so the quads and triangles
always meet at the vertices, instead of having the vertices of some objects
meeting the middle of the edges of other objects.
One way you could have done this is to treat the eye as a set of odd-shaped
rings. Each ring would be composed of a sequence of trapezoids (like the
various *ring.dat p-files), and the outer edge of each trapezoid would also
be the inner edge of another trapezoid. In wireframe mode, it would look
like a spider web, I suppose.
To get the coordinates of the trapezoids' vertices, you could have laid out
several 4-4edge.dat primitives to mark the borders of each ring, then
inlined the p-files. Of course, then you'd've had to construct the
trapezoids from the points, which would be tedious.
> Anyway, this isn't *quite* finished. These issues need to be addressed:
> #1: I don't know which primitive to use for the top stud. This piece uses
> a scaled-up stud4.dat, which in my opinion is the perfect dimensions.
Use the name stud7.dat. Whatever we stick in the p-file, that name should
work.
> #2: Do we have a range of pattern numbers set aside for Duplo? I need a
> pattern designator.
Nope, you can call this file 3437p01.dat.
> #3: Someone else (Don Rogerson) modeled the binding splines in his Duplo
> part as being narrower (3x4 instead of 4x4). That looks like it is more
> accurate, so I'll probably make that change.
Are the 'binding splines' the ribs between the bottom tubes? That's fine,
let's get some standard dimensions and go with it. I'm guessing the ribs
vary enough (over time and molds) that there's little point in having
*exact* figures for them.
> There are also a lot of comments in the file. I expect I'll clean most of
> those out later.
That's fine, too. I usually do that to comments in my files, to save space
in the download library.
Side idea: when we've got an automated parts librarian, we could implement
a specific meta-statement for comments that could be stripped from the
files when they are served up for downloads. People who wanted to see the
comments would retrieve with a different command (or option on the
command). That way, developers comments could be preserved for later use
(and I could drop the huge directory of pre-release files on my hard
drive).
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
