 | | Suggested New Primitive: 4-4cyl12.dat (was: More cylinder primitives wanted) [DAT]
|
|
(...) There is no rule against primitive files calling to other \P files. I didn't have to look very long to find one. And if we inlined them, I suspect the primitive substitution in L3P will not work until L3P is updated to support the new ones. (...) (18 years ago, 14-May-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Solid or hollow centerstuds?
|
|
(...) Thanks for the quick answer. When going through some existing parts to make these BFC certified, I came across part 2428, which seems to be created with hollow centerstuds, but the inside is missing. I'll change these to stud3's instead of (...) (18 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Solid or hollow centerstuds?
|
|
(...) Since there is no difference in functionality, LDraw should stay with only solid stud3's. If we introduce a hollow version, that will lead to confusion. Steve (18 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Solid or hollow centerstuds?
|
|
A few years ago TLC changed the design of the small centerstuds at the bottom of many bricks to hollow (to save material). (See 1xN plates and bricks, but also many other parts) For parts that exist with both the hollow and the solid centerstuds the (...) (18 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: "odd" rings
|
|
(...) Yes, use 2 rings. Rings and cones are one of the few exceptions we make regarding overlapping quads/triangles. Check out this Excel spreadsheet that will show you the scaling you need to use for the rings: (URL) (19 years ago, 28-Aug-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | "odd" rings
|
|
Erm... I need to do a ring with an inner radius of 10 and an outer of 14. My reckoning means I need a factor of 4 and a ring with an inner diameter of 2.5. Which doesn't exist. Can anyone think of a way of doing this with a single ring or do I have (...) (19 years ago, 27-Aug-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: 1-8tang.dat?
|
|
(...) (URL) (...) Thanx :-) Niels (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 1-8tang.dat?
|
|
(...) but the current 1-8tang on the PT has 3 hold votes. This part (...) changed since december last year. Is someone willing to correct (...) It would be rather handy to give us a direct link to this primitive. And then, nice (URL) retro (...) (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
|
| |
| | 1-8tang.dat?
|
|
I am working on a part and I actually need something like a 1-8tang primitive, but the current 1-8tang on the PT has 3 hold votes. This part hasn't been changed since december last year. Is someone willing to correct this primitive? Niels (19 years ago, 31-May-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: CCW vs CW
|
|
(...) If it's not a whole lot of trouble, I would recommend it. (The conversion can be made automatic, as long as the individual files clearly state CW or CCW correctly.) Speaking as a computer graphics professional, I can say for sure that being (...) (19 years ago, 13-May-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
|
| |
| | CCW vs CW
|
|
The (URL) Language Extension for Clipping (BFC)> states in the Parts Library Guidelines section that Primitives should always use CCW winding. However some of the primitives use CW, for example (URL) rect.dat>. Should these be rewritten? Would it be (...) (19 years ago, 12-May-05, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: stud3 -- hollow vs filled
|
|
(...) Since this question crops up at regular intervals, I've added an explanatory note to the Primitives Reference : (URL) Chris (20 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: stud3 -- hollow vs filled
|
|
(...) Note that FWIW, BrickLink and Peeron and other inventory resources tend not to get to this level of detail either, they typically do not differentiate this. (20 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: stud3 -- hollow vs filled
|
|
(...) Hello, James! [snip description of situation leading up to the question] (...) The standard in the LDraw library is to use stud3.dat for all stud3-type anti-studs, regardless of whether they are actually hollow or solid. The reason is that (...) (20 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | stud3 -- hollow vs filled
|
|
Hello, everyone. When I was working on 71427 (expect a post on l.c.d.parts soon), I noticed that the two small underside studs were modeled with a pair of cyli4-4s and a disk1. When looking for the proper primitive to replace that with, I noticed (...) (20 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
|
(...) I missed responding to this one specific point. In general, aliases amongst the primitives would be a bad thing. They would primarily add more files to an already too-large list of primitives, and would only provide duplicate function. In this (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
|
(...) The consistency is in the basic four fractions: 1-4, 2-4, 3-4, 4-4. The other measures are (more or less) deliberate inconsistencies to name files that don't fit the basic standard. (...) Yes, that would be an incorrect consideration. Part (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
|
(...) It's not really that hard, but my mind recoils at a senseless inconsistency, and this, and the following, are it. Note that I suggested an alias, not move, and certainly not removing the existing names. (...) "0 Circle 1.0". 5-8edge should be (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
|
(...) Great - we are always looking for constructive help. (...) I don't see the benefit from this - the naming convention is well established and existing part authors know how to work with it. Is it that hard to learn? (...) Yes - as I have (...) (20 years ago, 8-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | N-Fedge primitives
|
|
Hello, everyone. This was posted with NNTP, but seems to have dissappeared somehow, so I'm re-posting with the http interface. My appolgies if it turns up twice. I'm just getting started with LDraw, and returning to the lego-driven days of my youth, (...) (20 years ago, 8-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
