 | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | (...) O.K. I've finaly succeeded in posting COILTEST.DAT to the LUGNET.CAD.DAT.PARTS group. So check it out there. Greetings, M. Moolhuysen. (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat —Terry Keller
|
| | | | (...) Cool. OK, doing a 640x480 rendering now.... While we're all virtually waiting, I'd like to know how long it took you to create the dat file, and your assesment of the difficulty of doing so. It does look pretty good in LDlite, which is a plus. (...) (26 years ago, 22-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | (...) the (...) "It's slinky, it's slinky, a wonder- wonderful toy . . ." What we need is a torus primitive for this which L3P can subsitute. Terry, have you done any POVs of the whole assembly at a smaller scale? -John Van (26 years ago, 22-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat —Terry Keller
|
| | | | | | (...) No, just the one-shot deal. Of course, it may look better at a smaller scale. Then again, it may look worse. I would do it right now, but I can barely keep my eyes open, and I promised myself "email and lugnet only, then to sleep". -- Terry K (...) (26 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | | In lugnet.cad.dev, Terry Keller writes: (about my file COILTEST.DAT in LUGNET.CAD.DAT.PARTS) [snip] (...) It wasn't difficult at all, I just did a copy of the spring section lines from the shock absorber shortcut file, and did a paste two times in a (...) (26 years ago, 25-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat —Jeff Boen
|
| | | | (...) it would be no problem to model the coils/wraps with *any* cross-section shape in the universe.. the reason i went with a diamond was simply to reduce the number of faces that would have to be rendered... i figured that the metal portion of (...) (26 years ago, 25-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat —Terry Keller
|
| | | | (...) Yes, the consensus. That is the tough part. I do think that, whichever way we decide to go, that the cross-section should have a little more roundness to it. The output in POV-Ray is proof of that. OK people, how about this: Manfreds (...) (26 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | On Wed, 26 May 1999 06:18:52 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote: [snip] (...) Hmm. Did you mean 'skoash' or 'skoosh'? Seriously, it sounds fine to me. Steve (25 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat —Terry Keller
|
| | | | (...) 'Skawsh' silly. (...) Good, but don't call me Seriously. -- Terry K -- (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | (...) wrote: (...) Surely, you don't mean that! ;) Jeff (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| | | | |
