|
|
Unofficial File parts/56891.dat
Next File |
Prev File |
Download |
Review |
Edit |
CA Header Edit |
Events
File Header:
0 Tyre 37 18R
0 Name: 56891.dat
0 Author: Magnus Forsberg [MagFors]
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Part
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt
0 BFC CERTIFY CCW
0 !HISTORY 2009-10-13 {LEGO Universe Team} Original part shape
0 !HISTORY 2010-02-22 [MagFors] File preparation for LDraw Parts Tracker
Status:
 2 subfiles aren't certified. (CCSSX)
Size: 1768 bytes
Reviewers' certifications:
MagFors=novote
Philo=certify
arezey=novote
mikeheide=certify
Required (unofficial) subfiles:
Related (unofficial) files:
(none)
File reviews and updates:
At Sun Feb 21 23:30:24 2010, the file was initially submitted.
Submitted by: MagFors
======================================================================
At Mon Feb 22 08:55:12 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: Philo
Certification: hold
Comments:
Radius of center hole should be 1 ldu smaller to match 55981 hub (21 ldu instead of 22).
======================================================================
At Mon Feb 22 22:32:50 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: novote
Comments:
Subfiles updated.
How do I calculate the total filesize? Can I just add up the subfiles. How do I know, if it would be better to make a 1/4-file of my subfiles for the innerstructure. Is a new file of 1 x 56891s03 + 4 x 56891s02 smaller in total filesize.
How do I decide where to cut my file?
======================================================================
At Tue Feb 23 08:00:06 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: Philo
Certification: novote
Comments:
"How do I calculate the total filesize? Can I just add up the subfiles."
Technically yes. But actually it's a subtle art of tradeoff because more subparts also means more clutter in /s forder, more size because of HD clusterisation, and - even more important - more work for reviewers and admin.
In this case I would have merged 1/4 side with inner structure, especially since 1/4 inner structure, using bigger primitives, would be no much bigger than 1/16.
Otherwise it looks very good. Did you directly used LUT data or made a full rewrite?
======================================================================
At Tue Feb 23 18:50:48 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: mikeheide
Certification: novote
Comments:
HD filesize depends on how it has been formated. I have several smaller HD that have from 512 byte to 16Kb for each cluster. So if a file has only 300 byte there is a waste of 41% if clustersize is 512 byte or 98% if clustersize is 16Kb. So in general it can be stated that larger files instead of many subfiles will save disc space. Smaller files will always be good for downloading, as only the real data are transfered.
======================================================================
At Fri Feb 26 17:30:09 2010, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: MagFors
Comments:
Well, how did I do it?
I started with two cutter-files at 22.5 and 20 degrees angle. In MLCad I then removed everything I didn't want. I divided the rest by sorting in LDDP. The tread is pure LUT, but the second file had to be readjusted to close all gaps. I then made a third file to close the differences. I have now made a rewrite of the structure useing "Rings and Cones" and tweaked the result in LDDP and MLCad.
That program creates connecting rings from the smaller diameter to the bigger one. Is there a way to reverse that, and create rings from the larger diameter inwards?
Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Sat Feb 27 08:40:08 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: mikeheide
Certification: novote
Comments:
I did not see the reason for your question. "ring and cones" just give you information about rings that fits to the given inner and outer diameter.
======================================================================
At Sat Feb 27 08:55:17 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: mikeheide
Certification: novote
Comments:
Should also use ISO-like naming convention
width_(mm)/aspect_ratio x rim_diameter_(mm) [optional qualifiers]
The moulded description should go into Keyword section.
======================================================================
At Sat Feb 27 11:45:41 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: novote
Comments:
First:
If I want to bend the rules and make two overlapping rings, I would like to define the outer radius. Rings and Cones just adds some very thin rings.
Second:
I understand the need for new names on parts without visual info molded on them, but are really all tyres getting new names?
======================================================================
At Sat Feb 27 11:55:26 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: mikeheide
Certification: novote
Comments:
I don't have this part but looking from back it seem to me that the outer rim is not correct modeled.
To your problem - I don't understand.
======================================================================
At Sat Feb 27 12:05:04 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: arezey
Certification: novote
Comments:
FWIW, speaking of rings and cones, there's a little rule over them:
If there's *one* ring between two radii r1 and r2, then:
scale = |r2 - r1|
number = r1/scale ( = r1/|r2 - r1| )
Naturally this yields results for all radii pairs, but the number has to become a whole number. If not.. then multiple rings need to be used.
And consequently:
If r2 = r1+1 (that is, if they are 1LDU away from each other), then
scale = |r2 - r1| = |r1 + 1 - r1| = 1
number = r1/scale = r1
Note that r1 needs to be a whole number here, naturally.
If r2 = r1+0.5 (if they're 0.5LDU away from each other), then
scale = |r1 + 0.5 - r1| = 0.5
number = r1/0.5 = 2r1
And here r1 needs to be either a whole number or a whole number plus half: r1=1 goes, r1=1.5 goes, r1=17.5 goes but r1=17.4 does not.
And if r2=r1+0.25, then scale is 0.25 and number is 4r1 and so on..
I don't know how well-known these rules are but thought to post it nonetheless, in case somebody did not know. It's a timesaver. :) And it also may be the answer to MagFors' question.
======================================================================
At Sat Feb 27 17:35:12 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: novote
Comments:
All I want is this. If my target is 27.8, how do I simply find this value: 3.9713 in
"1 16 0 0 0 3.9713 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3.9713 4-4ring6.dat"
( 3.9713 x 6 + 3.9713 = 27.7991 ). Does that make sence?
Since I don't understand Arezey's math, I'll drop that question.
Mike, what do you mean? I think this is very close to LUT and LDD. Pictures present at Peeron and Bricklink isn't helping much. But, LUT-data has been wrong before.
======================================================================
At Sat Feb 27 18:05:43 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: arezey
Certification: novote
Comments:
Rings are extrusions between two radii. The ring you wrote above is a ring that covers radii 23.828 and 27.799.
The math I wrote above could work here like this:
"source" = r1 = 23.828
"target" = r2 = 27.799
scale = |r2-r1| = |27.799 - 23.828| = 3.971
number = r1/scale = 23.828/3.971 = 6.0005 ~= 6 (coincidence, though)
Thus ring6 with scale 3.971. And that's not far at all from "1 16 0 0 0 3.9713 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3.9713 4-4ring6.dat".
Your target may be 27.8 but you also need to know what's your "source".
======================================================================
At Sun Feb 28 07:25:02 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: Philo
Certification: certify
No comments were posted with this review.
======================================================================
At Sun Feb 28 09:05:11 2010, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: mikeheide
Certification: certify
No comments were posted with this review.
======================================================================
At Mon May 20 17:10:03 2013, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: novote
Comments:
Where should the origin be?
In the middle of the tyre, or in the middle of the rim?
======================================================================
At Tue May 21 10:15:03 2013, the following review was posted:
Reviewer: arezey
Certification: novote
Comments:
I think it should be at the center of the axlehole of the corresponding tyre that fits into this. I don't know where that is though with this one.
|
Needs admin review. (CCX)