| |
I guess I'm thinking about this differently. It's not that the
individual studs on the brick don't allow other mating angles. (IE you
can place a 1 x 6 technic plate with rounded ends on any single stud at
some funcky angles) It's the combination of the contraints imposed by at
least 3 studs in a non-linear arangement that results in the 90 degree
"snaps" in that plane. Just like 2 studs limits one to 180 degree snaps.
It's even worse than that. It's the number of studs that are actually
being used, not count of stud primitive on the element, that determines
how things behave. Try putting some 1x1 round plates (dots) in between
some bricks and you'll see what I mean. With just 1 dot you can orient
the 2xN bricks at any angle. We need to allow for things like that so
any stud primitive, where ever it is used, should always allow aribrary
angles...
Dan wrote:
> I do indeed think it would be undesirable. As we all know Stud.dat gets used
> every ware. There are a fair few instances were the clicking behaviours of two
> bricks would be different even though they are both referencing the same
> stud.dat file for geometry.
>
> For example parts 3822 and 3622. A door and a brick respectively. The studs on
> the brick snap every 90 degrees but on the door you often want it open to say
> 45degrees. So there are two different behaviours for stud.dat in this case. If
> you inherited clicking information from sub parts of the geometry of a brick,
> you would need to keep track of all the different ways that sub part can be
> used. This would make things much more complicated.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
35 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
|
|
|
|
