 | | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) We could go that route, just have the two halves and no shortcut. The important thing is this would still be an accurate use of the numbers, but without carring it to the logical extreme and having the complete part. (...) True. Note that in (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) Won't changing the length change the ease of modeling? Currently, you can line parts up (such as connectors or bushings) to the end of the axle because when lined up corectly, they share a common plane. If you make the axles shorter, this (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) Holes through the stud, or holes through the ball? Steve (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) hehe.. i can always count on you to be a pain, steve... :) every morning i come in here and check this thread and i can see everyone's point with equal value... i started in on this convo from the standpoint of "2 #16 parts, then aggregate (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) The axles are shorter than bricks. Comparing the 2L axle to a 2x brick, the axle comes up about 1.5 LDU short. I haven't checked the other axles, for now I'm guessing they are also 1.5LDU short. (...) I posted one a few days ago. It was the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
