Subject:
|
Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:01:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1139 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:21:40 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
>
> 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
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 --
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
