 | | Re: Parts as volumes (instead of surfaces)
|
|
[ XFUT lugnet.cad.dev ] (...) What's "CSG descriptions"? (...) But they aren't (as you also write). Still, you are probably correct that BFC information in the LDraw parts can be used for collision detection. (...) I think it deserves further (...) (23 years ago, 7-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LCAD admin] plz re-name files...
|
|
(...) Done. But because of length limitations, I had to remove the word "Danger" from both titles. The keywords look fine to me. Steve (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Part naming question for different versions of the same part
|
|
(...) I'd go for either option #1 or #3. In option #2, it seems like the name for 4066b.dat is misleading, because the difference between the parts is (relatively) minor. And I'd actually lean toward #3, because the difference is in the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) Sure, that's possible. But by the time you get to a theoretical upper bound, you're way past the practical upper bound. So I'm not sure what the practical benefit would be. Steve (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) Sorry for the mess, I'll fix my settings before I post my next part. Willy (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LCAD admin] plz re-name files...
|
|
(...) Cool. Thanks. Also, those two files needed their Title fixed (missing the descriptor "Double", indicating fingers on both ends), and the Keywords removed. Thanks, Franklin (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LCAD admin] plz re-name files...
|
|
(...) OK, I've renumbered these parts. Steve (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Part naming question for different versions of the same part
|
|
Part 4066 is a Duplo 1x2x2 brick. I'm wondering primarily about naming conventions. This part comes in two versions. The newer version allows a Duplo top-center stud to bind in the center, and the old one doesn't (it has a supporting structure in (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | [LCAD admin] plz re-name files...
|
|
Steve, I believe that I may have used the wrong part number for a couple of my files on the Parts Tracker. I'm specifically referring to the two patterned files I made for the 1x4 click-hinge brick: 30388p01 and 30388p02. I believe these should be (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) Assuming some reasonable limit on the size of a number in digits (say 20 total including before and after the decimal place, that allows a very big and pretty precise number) isn't there sort of an upper bound on the line length likely to be (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
(...) It's a weakness of the posting method (the file came in via email). I believe the line-wrapping was performed by Willy's email software. I recommend that all DAT content be posted via LUGNET's web interface, to avoid this line-wrapping issue. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: What about BFC-ing studs? (was: Two questions on primitives)
|
|
(...) Sorry, I got distracted. I'll get back to BFC'ing and submitting those primitives. [snip] (...) You're working on an incorrect assumption here. Reflecting a subfile (ie, negating the multipliers for one dimension) will not invert the subfile. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x192.dat - Minifig Shield Round
|
|
When I downloaded this part, I can see that Lugnet's DAT download truncated the lines to 80 characters. This totally mangled the part. Is this a weakness of the Lugnet interface, or is it enforcing a standard? In other words, are part file lines (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | What about BFC-ing studs? (was: Two questions on primitives)
|
|
(...) Okay... if this is the case, then what's the status on bringing the less-primitive primitives into BFC certification? Take studs for example. Studs strike me as a great candidate for getting BFC'd because of the potentially huge payoff. Of (...) (23 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Hi-res sphere?
|
|
(...) Sorry about the delayed response, but I was on vacation. I'll take a look at my sphere generation code as well and at the very least determine the difficulty of adding type 5 lines. I don't think it will be very difficult to do, but I haven't (...) (23 years ago, 31-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) One other thing,[1] the primitives which are most commonly used with the INVERTNEXT flag/statement are the *-*cyli.dat files. All of these files (the regular cylinder primitives) have BFC'ed versions posted on the Parts Tracker. -- Steve 1) (...) (23 years ago, 31-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
Thanks guys. You cleared up my only question with BFC -Orion (23 years ago, 30-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) You've got it. When existing part files are made BFC-compliant, they have to be checked through completely. The main changes are fixing polygon wrapping and adding INVERTNEXT statements. Until a file is labeled BFC-compliant, renderers (...) (23 years ago, 30-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Two questions on primitives
|
|
(...) Is this a real issue? Parts can't be truly BFC compliant until all of their subparts are BFC compliant. So yes, you'll have to insert those INVERTNEXT commands. But the part wasn't BFC compliant before, and this is just another part of (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Optimising piece use (Was: LDraw.org MOTM/SOTM voting for March is open)
|
|
Cool. I like the parallel-paths-to-ground idea that you'd get with conductance and studs as resistors. I can see large 1x16 "ground plane beams being used, likewise maybe wall pieces. Another interesting aspect is surface gradients, and the use of (...) (23 years ago, 29-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
