 | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | This problem has (probably) been realized by a number of people in the last few years; I figured it out (or was it pointed out to me?) a few months ago. Yes, I am planning on doing a mass name-change, but after the automated Parts-Tracker is up and (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change? —James Jackson
|
| | | | | (...) Ouch. Now that is some number. I looked it up in both the Windows Calculator and AutoCAD 2000 (expanding tolerance out to the smallest decimal -- hundred millionths) to find out the your large figure rings true. (...) *huff, puff* I'm inclined (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change? —Kyle D. Jackson
|
| | | | (...) Steve, I'm thinking it would be of more use to name the parts using a "Rise/Run" method, like in architecture. When using the LEGO pieces the important thing is not the actual angle on the sloped face, anymore than it is the actual height, (...) (24 years ago, 14-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Hmmm, interesting thought. I'll have to think it through some more. This would give us figures like: Angle Rise:Run 10 1:6 18 1:3 33/27 1:2 45 1:1 45 2:2 53 3&1/3:3 55 6:4 (not yet released) 65 2:1 75 3:1 Hmmm. Off the cuff, there are two (...) (24 years ago, 17-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) And it's a problem no matter which notation you use - the step is usually around 1/2 a plate high, so do you take that off the rise value? I also noticed for the first time recently that this step is a different height for different slope (...) (24 years ago, 18-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change? —Kyle D. Jackson
|
| | | | Nice response time here on my behalf :] Oops (...) Yeah, I didn't like these two either, mostly the first one. It could be confusing. (...) ARRrrgh!! Hehe, got it :] To me, either of the angle method or the rise-run methods could work, and I can (...) (24 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
