 | | Re: More accurate hand? (was Re: Work-in-progress improved minifig arm)
|
|
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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) [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?
|
|
(...) Hi Kyle, Also seems correct to me. Regards, Damien (23 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
