 | | Re: Why aren't the technic gear teeth primitives?
|
|
(...) Are the teeth the same between different parts? If they are different, it doesn't make much sense to have primitives for each one. Even if the teeth are different, it would be possible to make subfiles for the teeth. This could make sense for (...) (23 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) There's no 1-16cyli.dat primitive because it hasn't been needed/asked for. The general approach is to not introduce primitives until they're needed. Steve (23 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Why aren't the technic gear teeth primitives?
|
|
I was thinking that the teeth for the old technic gears (3647-1649) and the beveled ones (32270 and 32296) should be made into primitives. I tried editing the 3648 part in ldraw, but the file was too big to even load! (23 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) The INVERTNEXT directive takes care of this problem. Quoted from BFC proposal: "INVERTNEXT This option inverts a subfile. It may only be used immediately before a subfile command line, and it only influences the immediately following subfile (...) (23 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Two questions on primitives
|
|
Two questions (if these have already been discussed, just direct me to the appropriate LUGNET post): 1.) I've noticed the new BFC complient primitives on the Parts Tracker. How are we going to resolve the fact that the cylindar primitve can be used (...) (23 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
