 | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Thomas Burger
|
| | | | | WOW the millenium update? could it be? LOL good job steve! Tburger (25 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) 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, (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 14-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 14-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 15-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Jonathan Gevaryahu
|
| | | | (...) [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' (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Voting Open for LCAD Parts Update 2000-01 —Jonathan Gevaryahu
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
