 | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission —Steve Bliss
|
| | | A few things I noticed/suggestions: 1. The way you use box4nl, you are drawing a bunch of quads which will never be seen. Drop the end-quads from box4nl. 2. On the outside frame, butted-construction is not the best way to put graphics primitives (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission —Adam Howard
|
| | | | | Hmm... Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:379efb57.879462...net.com... (...) I'll do this, I guess it will save some time when being generated. (...) to (...) I don't know what YMMV stands for:) I'll check this out though. (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | | (...) But this piece is more akin to 3855 1x4x3 Window Glass than 3854 1x2x3 Window Pane. This piece and 3855 are akin in that, while they can be rotated, it is *much* less common than sitting vertical in the frame. Your piece, in its current form, (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission —Adam Howard
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Window (...) is (...) I disagree. There are a number of pieces (just about all) that need to be rotated one way or another to achieve the look you want. The design of xxxx just takes into account the rotational axis as an aid in positioning (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hmm. That's not *exactly* the intended guideline. Rotatable parts should be positioned so the axis of rotation lies on one of the major axes. That way, the part can be easily rotated to any angle. (...) But the A key function is only useful if (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission —Adam Howard
|
| | | | | | | | Thought experiment was very convincing. I'll redo the part so that the axis of rotation is around the x axis (I'll check the orientation of 30044 first to make sure the axis is correct). This way you'll only have to move the part in the y direction (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) You are right about the rotation point. It should lie on a major axis, to simplify rotating. However, I believe most window panes have been created in their 'default' orientation, not laying on their side. If you rotate this part 90-degrees (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission —Adam Howard
|
| | | | | | (...) What about the a key? Shouldn't that be considered when creating new parts that rotate? Adam (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | [followups set to lugnet.cad.dev - let's reign in this multi-ng discussion] (...) See my other post. The A key is very nice, it saves 5 keystrokes. But it isn't a reason to create a part in a bizarre orientation. Steve (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission —Adam Howard
|
| | | | Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:379efb57.879462...net.com... (...) to (...) I have rethought my original decision on both of these. I realize the end quads will never be seen, but is that a reason to create a new (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | [discussion cut to lugnet.cad.dev] (...) Yes, I feel it is a reason to change the primitive (by removing two opposing end panels). You can easily add the needed panels to the frame area. (...) But when graphics primitives (in this case, I mean (...) (25 years ago, 1-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
