Subject:
|
Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 May 1999 16:21:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1330 times
|
| |
|
|
So much for trying to be funny without reading all previous posts.
-John Van
Adviesbureau Noord/Zuidlijn <nzlijn@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:004901be9ae4$32b9a200$7c27a8c0@n0079...
> -----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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
| -----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 (...) Terry answered: (...) If we (...) (27 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
|
|
|
|
