Subject:
|
Re: Torus primitive discussion. was( Updated Primitive - 1-8t0102 1/8 torus)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:16:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2598 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Paul Easter wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Steve Bliss writes:
>
> > 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?
Because I was thinking that each section covered 90-degrees of the major
circle. Otherwise, they'd be named 16t*0301.dat, since each is 1/16 of a
complete torus. (I suppose they could be described as 1/8 of an inner (or
outer) torus, but I don't like mixing the fractions of the major radius
with the fractions of the tube). Any of these could be used, all of them
carry about the same semantic content, so I went with the option that was
simplest/took up the fewest characters in the filename.
> 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?
1/2 in terms of sweeping 45-degrees of the major circle? Or 1/2, in terms
of a smaller sweep of the tube?
Yes to the first, no to the second.
> 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?
That might be a good idea. It might mean we'd have to abandon the idea of
putting the radius in the p-file name, because we could end up with weird
radii.
It would also mean we could potentially get a number of p-files which are
hard to browse through, because they vary in size so much--think of trying
to view two files, one with radius 5, the other with radius 50.
Would it make more sense to hold the major radius to size 1, and vary the
size of the tube radius? That would make all the different torii p-files
appear more standard, and might make it easier to figure out which file to
use for a specific application.
Looking at the two options (holding the major radius constant or holding
the tube radius constant), I don't think there's any difference in the
procedure of selecting a p-file for a specific application. Holding the
major radius constant "seems" easier to me.
In either case, you'd have to figure out your specific major and tube
radii, find the ratio of the two, and select the p-file that models that
ratio.
So I think the best way to identify these files is to put the ratio in the
filename. The ratio of major radius to tube radius can never be more than
1.0, so we don't have to worry about encoding both fractional numbers and
double-digit values. I think if we encoded first 4 decimal digits of the
ratio, that should give us good results. But it might not be exact.
Steve
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
