Subject:
|
Re: 6056 - Brick 2 x 2 x 6 with Groove
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:56:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
952 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:02:26 GMT, "Jeff Stembel" <Dragonelf1@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > This is my second part, the 2x2x6 Brick with groove.
> > One thing I didn't model on this part was the small hole in the bottom
> > half-stud. Is this okay, or should it be there?
>
> I haven't looked at the part yet, if you mean one of those underside-studs,
> such as are found in 1x plates, the hole doesn't need to be there. And if
> you didn't use the appropriate stud primitive for that part of the part,
> you should have.
Good. A stud primitive wouldn't work there because it is only half a stud. If
you get a chance to render it, you'll see what I mean. You can also look at
part 4216, as it has the same underside.
> > P.S. Could someone tell me what should go into the KEYWORDS field? Also,
> > what is the 'not CW-compliant' Statement mean in some of the parts? Thanks!
>
> There's not a good definition of what goes in keywords. Basically, any
> information that you think would help people find the part on a
> text-search, but doesn't appear in the part-name. Geometry, related
> themes, synonyms for terms, all these are fair entries.
Hmmm... I guess I could go with this then:
0 KEYWORDS garage, portcullis, castle
> CW means clockwise. A quad/triangle is considered CW if the points are
> specified clockwise, while looking at the shape from the outside. A part
> is CW-compliant if all its quads/triangles are CW. 'Not CW-compliant'
> indicates the author is aware that the part is not CW-compliant.
>
> Rendering tools can take advantage of CW knowledge to speed up rendering.
> But they also have to know when CW doesn't apply.
Is it very important that I make it CW-compliant if possible? How do I Make it
CW-compliant, anyways?
Jeff
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 6056 - Brick 2 x 2 x 6 with Groove
|
| Jeff Stembel <Dragonelf1@aol.com> wrote in message news:FFy9q9.AJF@lugnet.com... (...) underside-studs, (...) if (...) stud. If (...) at (...) I think you should put the hole in. I was going to start work on this after working on another part and I (...) (25 years ago, 5-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 6056 - Brick 2 x 2 x 6 with Groove
|
| (...) I haven't looked at the part yet, if you mean one of those underside-studs, such as are found in 1x plates, the hole doesn't need to be there. And if you didn't use the appropriate stud primitive for that part of the part, you should have. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
12 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
|
|
|
|
