Subject:
|
Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 May 1999 12:53:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
510 times
|
| |
|
|
-----Original message-----
From: Terry K <legoverse@geocities.com>
To: lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com <lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com>
Date: maandag 10 mei 1999 13:09
Subject: Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
I wrote:
> > The idea of using a shock subfile first where the desired shock length is
> > obtained and then use the subfile for easy placement en rotation, also
> > works well for the 4th idea Terry mentioned. Terry wrote:
> >
> > > Some people may raise the question of just having one spring length, and
> > > then stretching or compressing it by altering the scale of the piece
> > > along one axis in the dat file.
> >
> > He rejected it claiming that scaling would be difficult. However, in the
> > shock subfile the scaling can be done along just one axis, by changing one
> > number in the line, and that is not difficult at all.
> > Scaling factor = desired length / original length.
> > In my opinion scaling the spring this way is easier than the positioning
> > and rotating method suggested by Karim.
Terry answered:
> Another negative thing I see with this method is that the dat file _must_
> be manually edited to affect the scaling change. It can't be done from
> LEdit. This is what makes it difficult - at least for the casual user.
> Karim's method can be done from LEdit, although I am not sure about the
> accuracy - it may be required to edit the dat file to fine tune the
> movement if LEdits "fine" mode is not sufficient.
> This is something that needs to be tested.
If we talk about a user friendly method, I can attempt to write a small
program that does the hard scaling work for us.
Input would be the desired distance between the axle- and technical hole.
Output would be the ready to be used subfile with the upper and lower end
positioned at the given distance and the spring scaled correctly between
them. Then the user can position and rotate this subfile to whatever spot he
wants. Also, the program could take care of the Pythagorean math you have to
do, because the axle-hole is not in line with the axis along which the
part is compressing/expanding. This Pythagorean calculation is also
necessary when using the position and rotation method proposed by Karim.
Terry wrote about scaling the spring:
> I fear that doing it that way might result in some very noticeable flaws.
> The upper and lower ends of the spring would be nicely proportioned, but
> the center of the spring - where it was stretched or compressed - would
> appear odd. The spring would no longer be round. It would appear to be
> oval instead.
> What would the transition point between round and oval look like?
I do not understand why this should happen. When I scale/compress a spring
in the direction of its main axis only, in the real word as well as in the
virtual word, the cross section still remains circular, doesn't it ?
Greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
| (...) It took me a while to bend my mind around this one, but now I see Terry's point. Think of a cross-section of the metal of the spring itself what you would see if you snipped it with wire-cutters (perish the thought). You would see a circle on (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
| (...) The inputs for such a program should be the x,y,z coordinates of both end points of the shock. That way, since you are using a seperate proggy to generate the shock, it might as well generate the whole shock, including rotation. It would be (...) (25 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
