Subject:
|
Re: New Part: 41530 Propellor 8 Blade 5 Diameter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:58:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2748 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Amnon Silverstein wrote:
> I have been working on the Hailfire Droid Wheel. That probably should be done
> with sub-parts too. It has 96 fins and 168 teeth, so it is going to be a pretty
> big dat file. For something with this amount of sub-parts, does it make sense
> to
> make sub-sub-parts? For example, I could have a tooth sub-part, and then list
> it
> 168 times. Or, I could have a tooth sub-sub-part, and a group of 14 teeth
> sub-part, and the final part would use 12 14-toothgroup sub-parts. That way,
> instead of 168 parts I just list 26 parts. If I use sub-sub-sub-sub parts, I
> could just have a list as small as 16 parts total (factoring 168 into 3 7 2 2
> 2). Or would this be overdoing it?
Using sub-sub-sub-parts is no problem, this currently happens to the stud group
primitives, too.
stug8.dat contains 4 references to stug4.dat
stug4.dat contains 4 references to stug2.dat
stug2.dat contains 4 references to stud.dat
Niels
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Part: 41530 Propellor 8 Blade 5 Diameter
|
| (...) I'd recommend taking a balanced approach to nested sub-filing. A 48x48 area of studs could be NSF'ed to 22 lines of code, but would require 10 very trivial subfiles. This trades one kind of complexity (lots of code lines) for another kind of (...) (19 years ago, 1-Dec-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
10 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
|
|
|
|
