Subject:
|
Re: bush lock primitives, 16 segment and inner edges.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Nov 2010 17:24:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
22682 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Chris Dee wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Mark Kennedy wrote:
> > The current bushloc primitives are divided into 32 segments where as most of the
> > normal round type primitives are divided int 16 segments. Having noticed this I
> > uploaded new versions of bushloc2 and bushloc3. Then I looked at some of the
> > parts where the bushloc primitives get used and noticed some lines where the
> > maybe shouldn't be.
> > (see part 6577 at: http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/6577.dat)
> > These extra lines can easily be fixed by removing the inner edges on the bush
> > locks, but is this desirable or should the inner edges be left alone?
>
> I agree with what you have done to adjust bushloc2 and bushloc3 to fit
> 16-segment polygons:
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=p/bushloc2.dat
> http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=p/bushloc3.dat
>
> Fixing primtives is usually quite a challenge for the parts update process
> because all the affected parts need to be re-issued at the same time as the
> corrected primitive. However, in this case the dependency set is so small I
> think we should do it:
>
> bushloc2 is used only in:
> 4265a.dat - not on Parts Tracker
> 6542.dat - http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?s=6542
> 6577.dat - http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?s=6577
>
> bushloc3.dat is used only in:
> 4273a.dat - http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/4273a.dat
> 4273b.dat - http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/4273b.dat
>
> If you can re-work 4265a, and we can expedite the review of these parts then I
> can make sure these all get released together.
>
> Chris Dee (LDraw Parts Library Admin)
There's still the question of the interior edges though. Should they be removed
or left as if? Also some of these could benefit from use of subparts, a common
subpart for both 4273a and 4273b then another subpart to be used by 6577 and
4265a. Would use of a subparts be acceptable in this case?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
3 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
