 | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
This isn't necessary. Just use a ring3 and a ring-4, both with the same placement and orientation... (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | ring 3 to 5 [DAT]
|
|
Here is a new ring primitive with inner radius 3 and outer radius 5. I'm not sure what to name it, but I guess they should use something along the lines of what is used for the torus primitves. 0 Ring 3 to 5 0 Name: ring3-5.dat 0 Author: Mark (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | technic gear tooth primitive [DAT]
|
|
Okay. Here is a primitive version of the tooth for all those technic gears. So far I've incorporated it into part 3647 and am working on putting it in 3648. 0 technic gear tooth 0 Name: cog.dat 0 Author: Mark Kennedy 1 16 1.50 1 0 -0.50 0 0 1 0 0 0 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: new axle hole (part two)
|
|
(...) Oops. Thanks. It's fixed now. Steve (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: new axlehole (part1)
|
|
(...) Sorry, I didn't see that in the tracker. I also submitted a new version of the magnet 73092 under the name of MAG.DAT since 73092 was taken. (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
