 | | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I'm only alright with hard-coded colors, IF they are somehow marked as not being primary parts. I would not want them all listed in as being available for building, just because it would eventually lead to parts-overload. You'd get about a (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I'll look into it. The main problems are (1) I'm not sure it can be done without rewriting the existing code, which I don't *really* feel like doing. And (2) I'm not planning on cutting a dinghy open to see what the inside looks like. So any (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) Yes, having new axle primitives would make the process go much easier. Perhaps the axle.dat file could be separated into two files: one with the end-lines, and the other with everything else. the "everything else" file would be one of the (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Vote 99-02: Page 3900
|
|
I was looking at this part some more, and wondering: are there two different versions of this piece, are does this part-file contain some serious design errors? All the RL examples of this element in my possession have a technic-stud on one side and (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) I like it. Are you suggesting we add two new axle primitives? The axle end and an axle segment without the end edges? This will surely make the process of reworking all the old axle-related parts easier. Introducing this much details will make (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
