 | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) I have a few comments: 2717.dat - Technic Seat Should we call this part "Technic Seat 3 x 2 Base" for clarity? I'm aware that theere is only one technic seat at the moment, but this might change, plus a more descriptive name may be in place. (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) It's probably a good idea to add the sizing information. (...) There's also a fix in this update to rename the old 'Technic Connector Locking' to 'Technic Toggle Joint Locking'. (...) There is precedence on using the part name to differentiate (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) Well, this kinda changes the situation! ;-) (...) : : (...) It depends on whatever the "4273.DAT Technic Connector Locking" gets named, but the important thing is that they are kept in the same sub-category, IMO. If the 4273 is renamed to fit (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) Yep. I'd change the rename of the 'Technic Connector Locking' to 'Technic Connector Toggle Locking'. (...) I know what you mean about the angled connectors. I suppose they should be "Technic Connector Angled". I'll think on that some more (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
WOW the millenium update? could it be? LOL good job steve! Tburger (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) I think I disagree with you. I've found the Bezier curves to be a good model for how the flexible axles bend in real life. But it is important to have a correct model for the flexible part in the first place. While the notched end parts are (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) I haven't tried any of this but wouldn't Hermite curves work better ? Bezier curves don't need to go through the control points (except for the endpoints) and Hermite curves also have the advantage of letting you specify the tangent vector for (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) Hmm. That sounds workable. (...) Portable Java would be best... (...) I agree, I just don't see how flexible parts can be coded in LDraw. If you've got some ideas in this direction, I'd love to see them. The lack of flex in LDraw parts is a (...) (24 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) [snip] Hey. why not add a new linetype or two to the ldraw format? this would solve both problems simultaneously: platform, and detail. (e.g. now it's the renderer's problem, not ours!) can't you just add: 6 c x y z a b c d e f g h i x' y' z' (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) The problem with this approach is that there are many ways to draw a curve from one point to another, even given the angles at the end points. The user may have some preferences, for example that there should be a clip connected to the hose at (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) If you are interested to see how I did it, you can view the DAT file for the model at: (URL) for the keyword "Bezier" to find the first occurence of the bent flexible axle. I used the following names for the various parts of the axle: (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) No hassle felt on my end--I feel stupid that I went to all the work of figuring out the angles, and then didn't document them. (...) Good point. We should definitely try harder to document part-usage. (...) Now that you mention the complete (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 [DAT]
|
|
(...) I could redo the part, slicing it into sections that are 4LDU long. To properly package, this, each distinct/unique section should be made into a subpart file, and the main part files would be a list of these subparts. Taking this approach, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) here's one solution: linetype 6 can be used multiple times in a row, with the x, y, and z set to where the curve must pass through, and the orientation to what the tube must look like in that position. hey, it *MIGHT* work. another, MUCH (...) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) It would probably be good enough to keep the "tip" in one, non-bendable part. Sure, I can think of situations where one would put only the outer part of the tip into something, causing the other part to bend. But that would probably be quite (...) (24 years ago, 14-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
I posted an updated TFA11 to (URL). Geez, I wish I could follow hyperlinks within my newsreader. There are some mistakes in the part, but the posting was mostly to look at how the main file was constructed, not the subfile details. (...) OK, I made (...) (24 years ago, 14-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) I think there are a few mistakes in that file. I posted a corrected version which looks good on my system. (...) Yeah, that's a good point. You'll do whatever you want on the issue of splitting the central part of the hose or not, I don't care (...) (24 years ago, 15-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) How about the following name-changes: 6041.DAT Propeller 3 Blade 1.5 Diameter 4617.DAT Propeller 3 Blade 5.5 Diameter The only other information morphological information would be connection-type, but I don't see a strong need for that. Here's (...) (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) Sounds good to me! (...) I think they should be combined. We don't have that many propellers/rotors anyway. Besides, it is probably better to put them in the same category, as the user will spend less time searching for individual parts. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) Cool. I'll look at the other propellors (note LDraw-spelling) and rotors to see if their names can be adjusted to match. (...) True, but what category? The differences between propellors and rotors are small (for our purposes), but the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) While there is a strong difference in the real world, the difference if fairly small in the LEGO world. Take 6041.dat, for example, which is, like you said, a boat propellor. But you will find this one on many "aircraft" like official (...) (24 years ago, 24-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) On second thoughts, perhaps we should add even more info? How about adding "angled blade" or some info about the number of studs on the blades, if that applies? And another thing: The 6041 has a larger diameter than 1.5, right? It must be the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) Here are the current parts from the Propellor and Rotor categories: 4745.DAT Propellor 2 Blade 6040.DAT Propellor Housing 3480.DAT Rotor 2 Blade Helicopter Tail 2421.DAT Rotor 3 Blade 2479.DAT Rotor 4 Blade 5 Diameter And the next update is (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:3dcbgs44ugldbko...4ax.com... (...) You probably didn't intend to have identical names here. (...) Wouldn't that be "Brick 2 x 2 x 2/3 w/ Propellor Housing"? The Propellor category works (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01
|
|
(...) I didn't intend not to. I don't have a particular aversion to duplicate names, although I realize that other people do. (...) I suppose. Either way, I don't really like it. :( (...) <grin> Might as well just leave it as Propellor Housing. Now, (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
