 | | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) Again, confusion (<g>): The question on the table is whether the BALL has a hole in it, NOT the stud... (All of mine have always had a hole through the stud). Of course, you did write "hole in the tow ball" earlier, so I'm presuming that this (...) (26 years ago, 10-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) No. I am very distinctly talking about the older item. I'm not sure what the new item you are talking about, but both of the elements that I described were in my collection years before Dk Grey became available, and both have a ball and a (...) (26 years ago, 10-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) I've actually run into a problem once with the axle being too long. I was trying to model a craft that I built, and I ended up fudging the virtual model by pushing the axle into the motor, because otherwise it popped through the radar dish on (...) (26 years ago, 10-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) There's one hole through the stud and the base where it is placed. Leonardo (26 years ago, 10-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) True. As the best way to keep everyone at least somewhat happy. (...) I don't want to over-use 3-digit numbers. Only where necessary and unavoidable. For instance; The complete yellow dinghy does have the correct number. So we can make a (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) I'm not confusing them. But I can't speak for other people. Once we've got part-files created, we'll have firmer ground to talk from. Steve (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I wonder -- are there color-specific part numbers for the dinghy, because it is a compound element? So if we publish two sub-files, and no shortcut, we skip the whole issue. But not publishing a shortcut seems really lame. The "part" is final (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) Just to be a pain: there are existing 'glued-together' parts in LDraw with sub-files for each component part and a main short-cut file for the whole thing. Two that spring to mind are the 2x2x11 pillar and the classic 2x4 plate hinge. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) If you're talking about the yellow hands from the large people, than I'm sure that they have holes. I'm looking at one of those parts right now and it has a hole in it. Maybe there are 2 versions of this part, with and without holes. I'll (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I vote in favour of solution #1 By the way, The pink Belville dinghy exists, it was part of set #5841 As seen from the pictures in my Dutch 1988 catalogue, it's identical to the yellow dinghy . Greetings, M. Moolhuysen. (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) Are you sure about this? I mean, I don't doubt that the length of the axles is LDraw is a bit to large, but doesn't this apply to nearly all parts? Surely a 1x1 brick is smaller than 20LDUx20LDU in real life, to leave some gap between the (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: patents
|
|
(...) I say go forth blindly. Just do it. If they get upset, then we worry about it. I would be more concerned if we were talking about Star TREK elements, since Paramount is well known for trying to squash anything they can't profit from. -- Terry (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Vote 99-02: Page 3900
|
|
(...) Good point. All I have is ones as you described it - no holes/one stud. Somebody speak up on this so we can get it straightened out. Until I get a good answer, this part is on hold. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) The problem is a bit more narrow than that. Basic pieces, like the 1x2 brick, are not affected by all this numbering/coloring controversy. Those pieces had a simple part number that is common to all the colors. So we would NOT be having (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) 1. Understood. 2. That's a given. I don't really expect to see detail. It is not something that would be a requirement, IMO. (...) No idea. It was news to me. Joshua might know something about it, but he never mentioned that one to me. (...) I (...) (26 years ago, 9-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
