| |
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
that the closest we had was stud3 -- which is solid, not hollow. So I checked
for other parts which had the same structure, and found 4477, Plate 1 x 10,
which uses stud3, even though it (or at least mine) has hollow small bottom
studs. So I checked if all small bottom studs were really hollow, and I think
the pattern is that plate-high ones are hollow, whereas brick-high ones are
sold.
Should I keep inlining the studs (there’s only two of them in this case),
submit a new primitive along with the updated 71427, or use stud3 on the theory
that it’s too minor a difference to care about? If I submit a new primitive,
I’d like to name it stud3h (for hollow), though stud vs stud2 is the closest
existing precedent. That’d mean stud3 vs stud12 (I only see 1-10 in p/, or on
the tracker, but 11 seems to be
reserved). I think
stud3 vs stud3h is more mnemonic, and isn’t anywhere close to the 8-character
limit.
-=- James Mastros
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
