 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
