Subject:
|
Re: New Part: Modulex\brk0220.dat - Modulex (R) Brick 2 x 20
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:08:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2619 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Bernd Broich wrote:
> > Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > > I don't know... It feel like it's easier to model with even LDU's. If
> > > you wish to mix real LEGO with Modulex, build a separate Modulex
> > > model file and scale down the intire assembly with 0.625.
> > > I think it's better to do it this way. What do you think?
> >
> > I think the scale of Modulex parts should hardcoded (62.5% of normal
> > size in dat-code). No separation. So it has the same norm as the
> > "normal" Lego parts (1 mm = 2.5 LDU).
> >
> > CU Bernd
>
> Have you really considered the consequenses when modelling? It will be almost
> impossible to calculate the positions of the parts. Or at least very, very time
> consuming.
>
>
> /Tore
I'm inclined to agree, as I have been struggling with this conceptual problem,
since borrowing a selection of Modulex with the intention of authoring some
parts for LDraw.
Are there any Modulex parts that _do_ actually bind with regular LEGO?
I think I'd rather treat Modulex as a separate building medium - effectively a
separate CAD parts library, as other have done for K'Nex. By scaling as Tore
suggests, all the the existing drawing and rendering tools should work well,
without having do deal with fractional positions, just by changing the
LDRAWPATH. That just leave the parts authors to deal with the scaling issue,
rather than forcing it upon the users.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
11 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
|
|
|
|
