| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, James Mastros wrote:
> > Hello, everyone.
>
> Hello, James!
>
> [snip description of situation leading up to the question]
>
> > 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?
>
> 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 it's basically a non-functional difference which is too minor to worry
> about.
>
> Also, LEGO has changed their molding over time, so some parts have both
> solid-stud3 and hollow-stud3 variations.
>
> Steve
Since this question crops up at regular intervals, I've added an explanatory
note to the Primitives Reference :
<http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/ref/primref/#specstud>
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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
|
|
|
|
