|
|
 | | Re: "Clusters" of Studs?
|
| (...) Yeah, they'd be just the studs. (...) I'm not opposed to that; I don't see a compelling choice between stug* and stus*. Because I had files that used them, I went ahead and submitted stug3, stug4, stug6 and stug8 to the PT. If people want (...) (20 years ago, 26-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: "Clusters" of Studs?
|
| (...) Just to clarify, would these include the surface between the studs, or just the studs? I think logically they should include just the studs but just wanted to make sure. (...) Maybe, if that is a future possibility, the square ones should be (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: "Clusters" of Studs?
|
| (...) ... Whoops; you're right. --Travis (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: "Clusters" of Studs?
|
| (...) From the way Steve explained it, it sounds like stug4 would be a 4x4 square, not a 2x2 square, in which case going from stugN to stugN+1 actually does give you another 2N+1 studs. When you think about it, by your reasoning, you'd never (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: "Clusters" of Studs?
|
| Since I haven't authored any parts, I'm not going to go into this too deeply, but I think that square groups is a good idea. One minor note. Going from one group size to the next gives you 2 * sqrt(N) + 1 new studs, not 2N + 1. --Travis (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: "Clusters" of Studs?
|
| Steve, I say, "Go for it." ;) Franklin (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: "Clusters" of Studs?
|
| (...) Wow! Has it really been 2 years since we had this discussion? Either that, or I missed something in my newsgroup searching... Since I'm not seeing any stug*.dat files in the parts library, I'd like to revive this topic. I'd also like to (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: high res bushlocks? [DAT]
|
| (...) You're probably right. I just remembered that the bushlocks are divided into 32 segments which is fairly colse to 48. Though the notches in bushloc3 would probably align better with the studs if they used the high res primitves at least in (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | Re: high res bushlocks?
|
| (...) I think they are fine the way they are. The basic reason is size. The bushlocks are 20 LDU in diameter. 48-segment primitives are not needed until you get to 80 LDU diameter curves. If you need to put 48-segment primitives with a bushlock, (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | high res bushlocks?
|
| I think that the bushlock primitves should be updated to align with the 48 segment primitves. What do others think? (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
|
