 | | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Discussion-Large Technic Shock 2909c01.dat
|
|
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
|
|
(...) '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
|
|
(...) wrote: (...) Surely, you don't mean that! ;) Jeff (25 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
