 | | Re: cylinders missing conditional lines?
|
|
(...) I don't get that last thing with tangent lines (probably because english is not my native language). At the moment the official library contains 25 partial cylinder and cone primitives, out of which 21 have conditional lines at both ends and 4 (...) (20 years ago, 4-Nov-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: cylinders missing conditional lines?
|
|
(...) Actually, if you use conditional lines that follow the red tangent lines, as in Travis' diagram, then you want them to overlap. You get partial coverage from each of them that adds up to the total coverage you'd get from the original style of (...) (20 years ago, 4-Nov-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: cylinders missing conditional lines?
|
|
(...) I checked a few official parts that use the 2-4cyli primitive. And all the parts I have checked so far are missing the conditional line at one end of the cylinder. So I suspect that part authors expect that all partial cylinder primitives have (...) (20 years ago, 4-Nov-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: cylinders missing conditional lines?
|
|
(...) This thread pops up from time to time and never seems to get resolved. (URL) think the problem is this: If you fix the all the primitives, then you really must check all the parts that use them. So we end up ignoring it and moving on. If (...) (20 years ago, 4-Nov-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | cylinders missing conditional lines?
|
|
When using the 2-4cyli primitive I noticed one conditional line missing, so I compared all different cyli primitives. Some have conditional lines at both ends, some have not. 1-4cyli: conditional lines at both ends 1-8cyli: conditional line at one (...) (20 years ago, 4-Nov-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
