 | | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) You've got it. When existing part files are made BFC-compliant, they have to be checked through completely. The main changes are fixing polygon wrapping and adding INVERTNEXT statements. Until a file is labeled BFC-compliant, renderers (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) Is this a real issue? Parts can't be truly BFC compliant until all of their subparts are BFC compliant. So yes, you'll have to insert those INVERTNEXT commands. But the part wasn't BFC compliant before, and this is just another part of (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Why aren't the technic gear teeth primitives?
|
|
(...) If they were designed properly, the tooth profiles will be different between the 8t, 24t, etc. gears. The tooth profile of a gear follows an involute curve, which means the profile is the involute of a base circle slightly smaller than the (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Why aren't the technic gear teeth primitives?
|
|
(...) editing (...) The teeth on the small 8 tooth gear are slightly different from the larger ones(Though in the file they are pretty much drawn as trapezoidal boxes). But on the two beveled gears they apear practicly identical as far as I can (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) I'm concerned that if we release those primitives that can be used as both inside and outside surfaces as BFC complient, we'll have to go back to all the other pieces that use them to insert the INVERTNEXT directive (where appropriate). (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: New primitive: Ring 2 Small Hole [DAT]
|
|
(...) I didn't know this. Thanks for explain! (...) I used the ring1 to construct the ring: 1 16 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 ring1.dat 1 16 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 ring2.dat because if I scale down the ring2.dat, the thickness of the border will be 1/2, (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Question about a new kind of stud
|
|
(...) I replied to your posting of the ring file. (...) Good question. :) (...) Since it is a stud, I'd say you should post stud9.dat as a primitive. But replace ring2a.dat with the two-line construction I posted in my earlier message. Also, if you (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: New primitive: Ring 2 Small Hole [DAT]
|
|
(...) There's a problem with this. In LDraw-world, "Ring X" is shorthand for "a ring with inner radius = X and outer radius = (X+1)". Your ring has IR=1/3 and OR=1, right? I don't think there's any way a ring can be constructed so that 3*IR = OR (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | New primitive: Ring 2 Small Hole [DAT]
|
|
this is the ring used in the new kind of stud that can be found in this piece: (2 URLs) Ring 2 Small hole 0 Name: ring2a.dat 0 Author: Ildefonso Junior Zanette 0 Unofficial Subpart 4 16 0.3333 0 0 0.3079 0 0.1276 0.9239 0 0.3827 1 0 0 4 16 0.3079 0 (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Question about a new kind of stud [DAT]
|
|
Hi, I'm modelling the following part: (URL) "Door 1 x 4 x 6 Frame", but this part has a different kind of stud: (URL) I didn't find this stud in the primitives directory, so, I start modelling it. Also, I didn't find a ring compatible with the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Stud Primitive Question
|
|
I'm a moron. I had studs on low resolution and thought they were 8 sided. My mistake. -Orion (23 years ago, 16-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Stud Primitive Question
|
|
(...) Studs aren't 8-sided cylinders; they are 16-sided cylinders just like the other cylinders. The low-resolution stud files are 8-sided cylinders. These files have the same filenames as the regular studs, but with a '2' instead of a 'd' (i.e. (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Stud Primitive Question
|
|
Does anyone know why studs are 8 sided cylindars but every other cylindar based object in LDraw is 16 sided?. Has this issue ever been addressed? -Orion (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: New stud 4 primitive for plates with holes
|
|
Don Heyse wrote... (...) Subpart is a better idea. Can be shared by several parts. Somehow I also feel that a primitive should be an object, one unbroken object and not separated objects. How much space do you really save? Bernd Broich wrote... (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: New stud 4 primitive for plates with holes
|
|
(...) I haven't thought of that, but I'll take it into consideration. (23 years ago, 16-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
