Subject:
|
Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:21:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
859 times
|
| |
|
|
Jonathan wilson:
> Todd Lehman:
> > Is this an attempt to model part #30014? If so, it is incorrect in at
> > least three very obvious ways -- (a) the vertical placement of ARM1.DAT,
> > (b) the use of ARM1.DAT in the first place, and (c) the use of 3004.DAT,
> > where a new element should have been designed to codify the 2 LDU
> > extrusion on the side of the brick.
> > [...]
>
> what do you mean use of arm1.dat?
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.
> should i have used arm2.dat?
No. Neither ARM1.DAT nor ARM2.DAT are correct for use in part #30014.
Again, you MUST have a copy of a *REAL* LEGO element in your hands instead
of trying to guess what it looks like.
You WILL NOT EVER, Jonathan, *EVER* be able to model elements correctly
until you resign yourself to doing this. Do not even try.
Take heed of what the seasoned parts designer experts are telling you, lest
in the course of ignoring such advice you become labeled the village idiot.
I know you can create good parts. You just have to be willing to listen to
what other people are saying. Right now, you are off in your own world.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 -- (25 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
