Subject:
|
Re: LCD draft spec comment
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.lcd
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 May 2004 17:55:52 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
stegu@itn.liu.se!Spamless!
|
Viewed:
|
3733 times
|
| |
|
|
Ross Crawford wrote:
> To be truly correct, the restraints should also have tolerances, the one that I
> would find most useful is technic axle in it's hole - there's quite a
> significant clearance between them. Not sure the best way to handle such things.
>
> ROSCO
If this is a feature that is used deliberately and often enough
to motivate a software model for it, it would be possible to
encode a combination of hard constraints, demonstrating the
normal and preferred connection method, and additional means
for breaking those constraints within certain pre-defined
acceptable limits, to take advantage of the small tolerances.
If every connection would be allowed several simultaneous
degrees of freedom, we are in for some rather hairy problems
in structural mechanics, but it would be perfectly possible to
allow a user to deliberately break a single constraint within
reason, preferably also with real world knowledge that it is OK
to connect pieces like that and have them stay together.
However, I'm not sure that this is a feature that is used
often enough to motivate a software implementation of it.
Can you give some example of when and how you have used it
to your advantage in models?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LCD draft spec comment
|
| (...) would find most useful is technic axle in it's hole - there's quite a significant clearance between them. Not sure the best way to handle such things. ROSCO (21 years ago, 22-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.lcd)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
