| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> Inspired by parts\s\4186a.dat, I would like to see "clusters" of studs, say
> 6 x 6 and 8 x 8. That would make a lot of part files *much* smaller.
>
> Maybe we could call them Stud36.dat and Stud64.dat?
Wow! Has it really been 2 years since we had this discussion? Either that, or
I missed something in my newsgroup searching...
Since I'm not seeing any stug*.dat files in the parts library, I'd like to
revive this topic. I'd also like to propose a limitation/simplification.
My simplification is this: I'd like us to stick to square stud groups. There
are several reasons I feel this is a good idea, primarily:
1. Reduction of filespace. Instead of having MxN potential stug files, we'll
only have N. So we won't suffer from stud-group overload in the PT.
2. Simplification of file names. We won't need to track X and Z. Just a single
X for each file.
3. Good increment of savings from one size to the next. Going from stugN to
stugN+1 will always add 2N+1 studs, which is a good increment.
4. No need to keep 3x4 straight from 4x3.
5. No need to argue about whether or not we need stug2-32. You know it would
happen.
6. Since there's only one dimension, we'd have filename-space to support
stud-groups of stud4 (and any other stud0 - stud9).
I'm coming at this from the POV that stud-groups are needed primarily for large
files. Like baseplates, where 90% of the file is all stud-references. 1xN and
2xN stud-groups would be convenient (to part authors) for regular-sized plates
and bricks, but no one else would benefit from their existence. When we code
large-dimension parts with stud-groups, we realize a significant file-size
savings -- which benefits everyone who has to download the file, and store it on
their harddrive.
However, if there's truly a part-author demand for 1xN (and maybe 2xN)
stud-groups, I'm not totally opposed to them. But maybe we could call them
'stud rows', instead of stud-groups? So they'd be stur*.dat files?
Thoughts?
Steve
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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)
| | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | "Clusters" of Studs?
|
| Inspired by parts\s\4186a.dat, I would like to see "clusters" of studs, say 6 x 6 and 8 x 8. That would make a lot of part files *much* smaller. Maybe we could call them Stud36.dat and Stud64.dat? /Tore (22 years ago, 18-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
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
|
|
|
|
