 | | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) One thing you should be careful of, though. If you do inline it so that your new sub-part is used and doesn't reference any actual primitives, programs like L3P and LDView can end up displaying things with gaps. Both LDView and L3P perform (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
Hello, in this case i would agree tp Franklin's opinion regarding using two ring instead of creating a new primitive because if we create a new primitive section for this you will have very big number of possible combinations (ring 1 +ring 2, ring 1 (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) It's all a compromise (just like life!). If you go creating primitives for every little sub-part that's used a few times, you end up with a primitive directory that's unwieldy & lots of parts which inline because they don't know the (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) As a program author, I believe that yes this would result in twice the polygon count. While I aggree that programs should generally do everything they can to make authoring parts easier, I also think that Part Authors ought to keep in mind (...) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: ring 3 to 5
|
|
(...) Wouldn't that result in twice as many polys that have to be rendered? Forgive if that's a dumb question, I ain't much of an author, you know. :-) (22 years ago, 2-May-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
