 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
