| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, John Riley wrote:
>
> It looks like there could be significant use of stud4 groups as well. I'm also
> thinking that 1 x n rows of stud2 and stud 3 could be useful. Not as high in
> demand, but the stud4 groups would be really nice. (The version of 700.dat
> posted is now over half stud4 calls.) (For stug2, I think just a 2x2 and 1x4
> would be all that is needed)
I've been thinking about groups of stud3 and stud4, but found it not too
commonly used as the stud.dat. Baseplates for example have no bottom studs.
There is also a little problem with the odd numbers - four top studs corresponds
to three bottom studs, 6 to 5, 8 to 7 and so on. I see no natural, generally
useful numbers.
My thought is that a group of 8 studs is the least number where it's worthwhile.
You save 7 calls by using such a group. With a group of 4, you only save 3
lines.
> Would a naming convention of
> stugNx-z.dat
> be useful?
> where
> N is the corresponding stud type (underscore for stud.dat)
> x and z are dimensions as before.
Well, almost. :) Earlier i this thread, Chris suggested that "The existing
parts\s\4186a.dat would become p\stuc1-48.dat" (c for cluster, now g for group)
Together with the suggested N, that would make 9+3, no longer within DOS naming
covention. How about stNgx-z.dat? Then the numbers are kept apart to avoid
confusion. All this, of course, if we decide to have groups other than with just
standard top studs.
> I like the idea of stud groups; I would just like it spread universally,
Me too. I'm planning to try this idea in the PT as soon as any discussion on
this subject is finished here.
/Tore
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
27 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
|
|
|
|
