 | | Another stupid part-authoring question (Primo?!?) —Tony Hafner
|
| | | Okay, I'm probably the only one here who really cares about Duplo parts (with the possible exception of Paul Easter). But I figure that some folks at least will appreciate having these added to the parts library. As part of modeling Duplo, I'm also (...) (23 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Another stupid part-authoring question (Primo?!?) —Franklin W. Cain
|
| | | | | Tony, FWIW, my vote is, anytime a partially spherical or parabolic shape is above a certain size, I *highly* recommend using the "high-res" (i.e., "48"-part) primitives. And don't worry about being "one of the few" who express interest in a subset (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Another stupid part-authoring question (Primo?!?) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Hmm. I don't have any Primo parts handy, so I've got to throw out a basic question. Isn't the inside of the Primo stud actually hollow? If we made a Primo stud that was subject to studline'ing, that would leave a huge hole in the Primo parts, (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Another stupid part-authoring question (Primo?!?) —Tony Hafner
|
| | | | (...) Yes, the stud is hollow. The studline substitution would leave a hole 56 (or at least 48) LDU across... big enough to fit a microfig-scale capital ship. -- Tony Hafner www.hafhead.com (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
