Subject:
|
Torus primitive discussion. was( Updated Primitive - 1-8t0102 1/8 torus)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 05:10:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2529 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Steve Bliss writes:
> Paul (et al),
Hello,
Torus comments are welcome from anyone who it may affect. I'm sure there are
others out there that will use these when they become familiar with them.
> Sorry I haven't replied to this message, I've been meaning to, but I didn't
> want to rush out a quick reply without thinking things through. I'm not
> sure I've thought things through thoroughly, but I thought I'd at least
> throw this out.
Ok, give it a throw... :-)
> So, stumbling through this a bit...
>
> Toroidal primitives can probably be handled similar to the way we've done
> ring primitives. The big difference is that it's possible to combine
> multiple ring p-files to make different widths of rings. This doesn't work
> (very well) for torii. For different (relative) widths, we'll need
> different files.
Yes, I am afraid so.
> The way I see it, we should stick with *circular* toroidal p-files (which
> is what Paul posted). We won't be able to accurately scale these files
> into elliptical forms, but I think that is a minor issue, as I think we
> won't need many elliptical torii.
I can agree to this, I think.
> In terms of saving filename characters, could we assume that any torus
> p-file is going to be '1-' something? 1-8, 1-16, etc.?
ok. I can handle it.
> Also, I'd like to assume/specify the sweep of the tube, and actually split
> torii into outer files and inner files. The minifig head could use outer
> sections, but it doesn't need inner sections.
I thought about this when I started working on the torii files. I didn't see
the need until I was working on the cannon part. (The exception here is that
I would still have broken the outer torus file apart and removed a few
pieces. It would extend into the hinge pin{stud?})
I will have to look into the sizing combinations needed, and see what
changes are needed to the spreadsheet. I think it will be quite painless.
> Finally, I'd rather measure the files in terms of major radius (the radius
> of the tube's circular center) and the radius of the tube, rather than
> measuring the inner and outer radius of the tube.
After playing with POV quite a bit, I agree with this method. This is POV's
method for creating a torus.
> So I'd publish Paul's 1-8t0102.dat as two file:
>
> 4ti0301.dat - inner surface, scaled up to integral dimensions
> 4to0301.dat - outer surface, scaled up to integral dimensions
Why 4? Did I miss something here? Also, would there be any need for a part
that would be 1/2 of each of these files? Or do we address this later?
I'm not sure what effect this would be, do we need to specify the torus'
tube(inner) radius if all the base part files will be 1 and scaled accordingly?
>
> This approach won't help with dimensions that don't readily resolve to
> integral numbers, which I think could happen. Hmm. Must think more.
I'm not sure I understand this statement.
(I understand the thinking part... :-D )
> Anyway, LMKWYT.
>
> Steve
Paul
http://www.geocities.com/pneaster/lego_parts.htm (finished parts)
http://www.geocities.com/pneaster/lego_todo.htm (in process)
http://www.geocities.com/pneaster/lego_todo2.htm (planned)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
