 | | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
what do you mean use of arm1.dat? should i have used arm2.dat? (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
Jonathan wilson: (...) I mean that you should not have referenced ARM1.DAT in a file purporting to represent part #30014. Granted, ARM1.DAT is the least incorrect of all subparts that you could have referenced, but it is still incorrect. (...) No. (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
(...) Agreed. Ditto. What Todd said. I second that. In spades. Jonathan, you have been reading these types of comments for quite a while now. Has _any_ of it sunk in? -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
i am listening to the group. i will do everything i can to accually get some lego to work from. at the monent i have a bag of lego (not mine) that i am looking at, but all the parts that guy had that were not in ldraw are too hard IMHO to model e.g. (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
(...) No, 5LDU is not accurate enough, especially for studs. Regular studs are always spaced *exactly* 20LDU apart. The only exceptions are some very odd, small bits. Depending on the part, studs will either be positioned on the even-number (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
|
(...) No. I will not ignore them. But I don't look forward to slogging through a bunch of parts finding obvious, glaring errors. Ones that should _NOT_ be there in pieces submitted for voting. And I can only assume that the errors are there because: (...) (26 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
