 | | Re: new axle hole (part two)
|
|
(...) Yes, yes you do. I believe you have the descriptions for 4 and 5 reversed. :-) 2 - (and so do I) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: new axle hole (part two)
|
|
(...) Lack of planning, I think. ;) Seriously, the axleholes are more complex than most other types of primitives, and presented in different ways in LEGO bricks. So there's a need for more variations. Just for fun,[1] I put together a gallery of (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: new axlehole (part1)
|
|
(...) [snipped DAT code] Mark, Is this primitive supposed to be a substantially different profile than axleho11.dat? Other than splitting it into two different files. (URL) Steve (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | new axle hole (part two) [DAT]
|
|
and the second part. If people think I should I would be willing to combine them into a single file. Why so many axle hole primitives anyway? 0 4 16 2 0 2 5.58 0 2 5.52 0 2.28 4.26 0 4.26 4 16 2 0 2 4.26 0 4.26 2.28 0 5.52 2 0 5.58 4 16 -2 0 -2 (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | new axlehole (part1) [DAT]
|
|
Plus a new type of axlehole 0 4 16 0 -0.00 -6 -2 -0.00 -5.66 -2 -1.00 -5.66 0 -1.00 -6 2 24 -2 -0.00 -5.66 -2 -1.00 -5.66 4 16 -2 -1.00 -5.66 -2 -0.00 -5.66 -2 -0.00 -2 -2 -1.00 -2 2 24 -2 -0.00 -2 -2 -1.00 -2 4 16 -2 -1.00 -2 -2 -0.00 -2 -5.66 (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | double bevel gear tooth [DAT]
|
|
Here is a new primitive for those double beveled technich gears. 0 Double Bevel Technic Gear Tooth 0 Name: bevcog.dat 0 Author: Mark Kennedy 0 taken out of 32270.dat by Marc Klein 0 3 16 0 3 -10 1.31 -0.09 -10 -1.31 -0.09 -10 2 24 0 3 -10 1.31 -0.09 (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: What about BFC-ing studs? (was: Two questions on primitives)
|
|
(...) Sorry, I got distracted. I'll get back to BFC'ing and submitting those primitives. [snip] (...) You're working on an incorrect assumption here. Reflecting a subfile (ie, negating the multipliers for one dimension) will not invert the subfile. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | What about BFC-ing studs? (was: Two questions on primitives)
|
|
(...) Okay... if this is the case, then what's the status on bringing the less-primitive primitives into BFC certification? Take studs for example. Studs strike me as a great candidate for getting BFC'd because of the potentially huge payoff. Of (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) One other thing,[1] the primitives which are most commonly used with the INVERTNEXT flag/statement are the *-*cyli.dat files. All of these files (the regular cylinder primitives) have BFC'ed versions posted on the Parts Tracker. -- Steve 1) (...) (23 years ago, 31-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
Thanks guys. You cleared up my only question with BFC -Orion (23 years ago, 30-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
