 | | More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm) —Ryan Farrington
|
| | | I wonder if it would be worth it to re-make the minifig hands too. The hand should tilt away from the hand "stem" at an angle of about 15 degrees. Right now, to get the correct angle of the hand to the arm, the hand has to be tilted so the solids (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm) —Ryan Farrington
|
| | | | | Sorry, all, :] I forgot Steve Bliss already briefly mentioned redoing the hand, so ignore anything in my post that sounds like I'm the only one who ever thought of it. :) But since the arm has now gotten attention from Chris Dee (thanks, Chris!), I (...) (23 years ago, 29-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I might have talked about it, but I'm not doing anything on it right now. Feel free to run with it. :) (...) I think I measured it at 17 degrees once, but I might have mis-measured (or be misremembering). Or maybe Tore told me that was the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm) —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, at first glance, using a spear as pointer, it looked like 17 degrees to me also. However, I did the following and came up with 14.5 degrees: 1. Lay a minifig up next to a piece of paper, with the hand in the up position and a spear in (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | is BOX5.DAT really BFC compliant? —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | | | I've been working on the BFC code in my application, and well, either I need to go to bed now (which is probably true either way :) or the BOX5.DAT primitive slipped into the last update with wrong-way wound quad. Am I reading this right? (...) This (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: is BOX5.DAT really BFC compliant? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | (...) [snip] (...) No, it's correct. Keep in mind that this polygon forms the *bottom* of the box, so it is facing downward. In the default view, you will actually be looking at the backside of this quad. Imagine being under the primitive, and (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: is BOX5.DAT really BFC compliant? —Damien Guichard
|
| | | | | | (...) Hi Kyle, Also seems correct to me. Regards, Damien (23 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm) —Tony Hafner
|
| | | | (...) Yes, we definitely need a new hand. In addition to the hand to stem angle, we also need to fix the origin to make sense, like being along the axis of wrist rotation. -- Tony Hafner www.hafhead.com (23 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm) —Franklin W. Cain
|
| | | | If someone does re-orient the minifig hand, please let me know, so that I can update this new file correspondingly: (URL) DAT file for the minifig hook-hand)... Thanks, Franklin (23 years ago, 1-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Urk. I hadn't looked at the hook-hand file yet. I'd forgotten how ... unusual ... the orientation of the hand was. My opinion is, in this case, logic should prevail over continuity, and the hook-hand should be given a rational orientation. (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
