Subject:
|
Re: Modelling !
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:32:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
627 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Rui Martins writes:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Rui Martins wrote:
> >
> > If a part truly breaks new ground, and there aren't any sufficiently
> > similar parts, then go with the following guidelines:
>
> Are these your opinions only, or is assumed buy other people too ?
Some of this has come up in various discussions. I'm not sure if all of it
has or not.
> > 3. Center the part on X-Z.
>
> Shouldn't we always center on the center of a stud or connection (like
> wheels)? Not on Total X/Z size.
No, centering on a stud isn't necessary. Look at 3001.dat, the 2x4 brick. It
is centered on X-Z, not on a stud. The same applies for all other even-sized
dimension in a brick, plate, or tile. Generally, with LEGO parts, the X-Z
centerpoint will fall on a stud or half-way between studs. If a part is not
horizontally sized to a multiple of 20LDU, and the X-Z centerpoint is at an
odd location of the part, then maybe a different positioning should be
considered for that part.
> Maybe this should be placed in http://www.ldraw.org somewhere, maybe open anew
> section for modellers, like a getting started page, with rules and guidelines.
At the very least, it should be in the LDraw FAQ. Jacob, can you add this?
If you want, I'll write up something slightly more formal.
> > > Since I have seen technic Axels(non-threaded/threaded), wheels, Wind • Screens,
> > > Windows, doors, etc... with non matching orientations.
> > > (example: Two wheels which have different rotation axis)
> > > suppose you had diferent orientations for different bricks, that would be a
> > > mess, so Why did this happen for the parts I mentioned before ?
> >
> > Because we're all volunteers.
>
> I know that !
:) YHBT
> what I meant was:
> How did those parts get by us, without this beeing noticed ?
I don't think there's any big secret. Nobody was looking very hard, checking
the orientation of the new parts to the old.
> I meant something along the lines of a program that would rotate/translate all
> parts (which would be defined in a .CFG file or something) according to a
> specific transformation matrix for each, and applied this to one of our
> personal
> model files, correcting the parts, their references/placement.
Right, I understood. I was just pointing out that such a program would have
to look at the versions of the parts installed (and the last change-date of
the model, probably) to know which parts needed fixing, and what fixing needed
to be done.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Modelling !
|
| (...) Thanks ! So, 1.00 mm = 2.5 LDU (...) I call this common sence, which I think everyone should use ! (...) Are these your opinions only, or is assumed buy other people too ? I agree with most of it ! (...) Check! (...) Check! (...) Shouldn't we (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jun-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
