|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
