Subject:
|
Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:36:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
465 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Kyle D. Jackson wrote:
> 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, length,
> or whatever in mm or something. Since we already reference
> all of the linear dims in terms of "LEGO units", should we not
> do the same for angular dims, for consistency?
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 things I *don't* like about this idea.
They might be more a matter of adjusting to change, and less actual
disadvantages. Anyway, they are:
1. The rise:run notation tends to be a close duplicate the Depth x Height
information.
2. The rise:run notation is slightly longer than the angle notation.
> Additionally there is the whole deal where (if I understand
> correctly) the actual linear dimensions used in .DAT files is
> not the same as those on actual LEGO parts.
The units of measure are different, but the relative dimensions are the
same. A 1x1x1 brick has a ratio of 5:5:6 in LDraw, just like real life.
> ... And of course there's the bit where
> the slope of the actual brick face is not the same as the slope
> made by a stack of those bricks, due to the little "step" at
> the "sharpest point" of each sloped brick.
That's true. But it's a slight difference.
> "Slope Brick 10 6x8" doesn't mean much to me, but
> "Slope Brick 1/6 6x8" does. It tells me the brick is 1-high,
> and there are no studs on top.
Actually, it should be "Slope Tile 10...", but I disgress.
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
| 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 (...) (23 years ago, 15-May-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "33" Slope Shocker... Possible name change?
|
| (...) 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, (...) (23 years ago, 14-Apr-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
