 | | Re: Star Wars Elements
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <36e41df1.21257934@l...et.com>... (...) Let's see, I did the 1X4 tile with red stripes, that should be close to 100% accurate. I did the outer shell of the x-wing windscreen, and the new wing piece is about 90% complete. (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Star Wars Elements
|
|
A general question, and some comments: Question: what parts, new in the SW sets, are people working on? Do you have the Parts Tracker updated? I know JVZ has some worked up. I'm not finding anything noted as Star Wars in the parts tracker, but if (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who's got the Y-wing?
|
|
(...) John- These are not new. They are well-known, well-loved and somewhat rare 16L axles with end-connectors. Steve (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) in all honesty, all i use LDraw for... to document my creations so that i have a record before i tear them apart... the only reason i model specific elements for the catalog is because i want/need them to document a RL model (well, sometimes (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) i disagree.. i say go for it... create the end caps (i thought about doing this myself when the crankshaft discussion came up) and let's have a primitive axle cross section without end faces... then i say we integrate the primitive+end caps (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Parts] Plate 1x1 Round with Towball
|
|
(...) With or without threading holes in the towball? Steve (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I'm only alright with hard-coded colors, IF they are somehow marked as not being primary parts. I would not want them all listed in as being available for building, just because it would eventually lead to parts-overload. You'd get about a (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I'll look into it. The main problems are (1) I'm not sure it can be done without rewriting the existing code, which I don't *really* feel like doing. And (2) I'm not planning on cutting a dinghy open to see what the inside looks like. So any (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) Yes, having new axle primitives would make the process go much easier. Perhaps the axle.dat file could be separated into two files: one with the end-lines, and the other with everything else. the "everything else" file would be one of the (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Vote 99-02: Page 3900
|
|
I was looking at this part some more, and wondering: are there two different versions of this piece, are does this part-file contain some serious design errors? All the RL examples of this element in my possession have a technic-stud on one side and (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axles - go rounded?
|
|
(...) I like it. Are you suggesting we add two new axle primitives? The axle end and an axle segment without the end edges? This will surely make the process of reworking all the old axle-related parts easier. Introducing this much details will make (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) I do. The parts I use the most (Technic axles, cross blocks, bushings, pins and so on), I also remember the number for. But I'm helpless without a list which can be used to look up the ones I can't remember, obviously. Fredrik (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: More parts feedback
|
|
(...) Me too. If we stick to "3873.DAT Technic Chain Tread" now, we can always add "0.6 x 2.6" later if there appears a new tread link later, can we not? (...) Out of the three, I prefer 2637.DAT Technic Axle 16 with End Connectors because the part (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Bezier Curves/Surfaces
|
|
Hi, This might be a little off-topic but I'm working on a terrain generator for LeoCAD so this still has to do with Lego and CAD. I'd like to know if anyone here have experience with bezier curves because I'd like to improve the way I'm calculating (...) (26 years ago, 8-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | technic threaded axles
|
|
according to the parts tracker page the technic threaded axle parts are done. can i please have them? (26 years ago, 7-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
onyx skrev i meddelandet ... (...) organize/search (...) If we didn't have to have compatibility with the original programs, LDRAW/LEDIT, the obvious step would be to make a database of all the parts, which would mean more effective use of the hard (...) (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: More parts feedback
|
|
Terry K wrote in message <36e0b4c1.2353492@lu...et.com>... (...) The problem with "Holes" is that it is used for many things and is only marginally descriptive. How about something like one of the following: 2637.DAT Technic Axle 16 with End Pin (...) (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: More parts feedback
|
|
(...) I agree with that. It would be a lot more sensible. And I like the original names for the Link Chain/Tread pieces. So, what do we like? with End Links / Holes / End Connectors? Or is there a nomenclature even more apt out there? -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
(...) For now, that would be a good solution. Of course, Steve would need to split the pieces first. (...) I finally just released it as 104.dat in color 16. A compromise of sorts. The problem is, other pieces will (do) have the same problem. The (...) (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part Numbering Crisis in LDraw
|
|
onyx wrote in message ... (...) library (...) possible... a (...) organize/search (...) Here you miss the point that some of us don't care a flip for TLG's nomemclature. TLG has its own reason for using it that doesn't make any sense for what we (...) (26 years ago, 6-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
