Parts Tracker :: Parts List :: Activity :: Submit :: PT Tools :: PT Reference :: LDraw Specifications :: Lookup

Unofficial File parts/s/42918s01.dat

Next File | Prev File | Download | Review | Edit | CA Header Edit | Events

part image

File Header:

0 ~Slope Brick Curved  8 x  2 without Top Surface
0 Name: s\42918s01.dat
0 Author: Ulrich Röder [UR]
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Subpart
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt

0 BFC CERTIFY CCW

0 // Cutouts
0 BFC INVERTNEXT

Status:
Needs admin review. (CCX)
Size: 13397 bytes

Reviewers' certifications:

MMR1988=certify
MagFors=certify

Required (unofficial) subfiles:
(none)

Related (unofficial) files:

parts/42918.dat

Slope Brick Curved 8 x 2

2 subfiles aren't certified. (CCSSX)

Events

parts/42918p01.dat

Slope Brick Curved 8 x 2 with Blue Stripe on Top Surface

1 subfile isn't certified. (CSX)

Events

File reviews and updates:

At Sun Mar 17 14:50:01 2019, the file was initially submitted.
Submitted by: UR
======================================================================
At Sun Mar 17 16:10:01 2019, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: hold
Comments:

Missing inverted cutouts for the two studs at the front

======================================================================
At Mon Mar 18 16:55:01 2019, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: UR
Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Mon Mar 18 22:20:02 2019, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: hold
Comments:

Missing condlines on those cutouts.
Missing edgelines on one of the reinforcements

Instead of using both cyli and cyls you could scale the stud4a.

Do we need to have such a smoothe, hi-res curve on the inside surface?
It could be possible to use the stud4s instead.
1 16 0 6.6 -20 0 0 1 0 .75 0 -1 0 0 stud4s.dat
One bigger quad for each stud4 and a stud4s prim instead

======================================================================
At Sun Mar 24 09:10:01 2019, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: UR
Certification: novote
Comments:
"Do we need to have such a smoothe, hi-res curve on the inside
surface? "

also my thought while preparing and adopting from THIS CERTIFIED part:

85970.dat



======================================================================
At Sun Mar 24 11:15:01 2019, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: UR
Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Tue Mar 26 17:05:01 2019, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: hold
Comments:

It isn't necessary to add extra edgelines around the stud4s if they are correctly positioned and sloped.
Edgelines are added by that primitive.

The stud4s works best if they stand on one single quad. The dividing line on the quads should be somewhere between the studs.
4 12 -16 8.96 -47.515 16 8.96 -47.515 16 12.002 -67.515 -16 12.002 -67.515
4 11 16 15.765 -87.885 -16 15.765 -87.885 -16 12.002 -67.515 16 12.002 -67.515
The edge at z = -67.515 should be at z = -70 (or between z=-68 and z=-72).

It looks like none of these edges are correct:
2 4 7.801 5.732 -19 16 5.811 -19.009
2 4 -7.803 5.992 -20.99 -16 5.981 -20.963
2 4 7.801 7.871 -39 16 7.935 -39.005
2 4 -7.801 8.127 -41 -16 8.173 -40.981
2 4 -16 7.871 -39.002 -7.801 7.871 -39.002
2 4 16 8.126 -40.998 7.801 8.126 -40.998
2 4 -16 5.812 -19.012 -7.802 5.925 -19.002
2 4 7.802 5.925 -20.998 16 5.984 -20.993
They're all above, or under, the surface.

Missing condlines here:
2 4 -16 20 -110 -4 20 -110
2 4 4 20 -110 16 20 -110

Gaps here:
2 4 -4.457 19.599 -107.704 -5.657 19.242 -105.657
2 4 4.457 19.599 -107.704 5.657 19.242 -105.657

The two thinner sections could be made by box prims, or at least be Rectified:
4 12 -16 4 20 -16 4 36 16 4 36 16 4 20
4 12 -16 8 20 -16 8 36 -16 4 36 -16 4 20
4 12 16 8 20 -16 8 20 -16 4 20 16 4 20
4 12 16 8 36 16 8 20 16 4 20 16 4 36
4 12 -16 8 36 16 8 36 16 4 36 -16 4 36
This could be created by a single box5-1
0 BFC INVERTNEXT
1 12 0 8 28 16 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 8 box5-1.dat



======================================================================
At Wed Mar 27 14:00:01 2019, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: UR
Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Wed Mar 27 19:05:01 2019, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: hold
Comments:

The stud4 prims are not correctly calculated.

Extend the stud4 through this surface:
4 13 -16 9.33 -50 -16 6.8 -30 16 6.8 -30 16 9.33 -50

and created these edgelines with Isecalc:
2 4 0 9.077 -48 3.0616 8.999987 -47.3912
2 4 3.0616 7.130013 -32.6088 0 7.053 -32

I calculated this:
1 12 0 9.077 -40 0 0 1 0 1.012 0 -1 0 0 stud4s.dat
1 11 0 9.077 -40 1 0 0 0 -3.73075 0 0 0 1 stud4a.dat

Both stud prims should be at the first point: y=9.077
The height of the slope stud is (9.077-7.053)/2 = 1.012
The height of the stud4 is (24-9.077)/4 = 3.73075

======================================================================
At Thu Mar 28 12:00:02 2019, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: UR
Comments:
thanks for fresh-up my mathematics memories....laugh...40-50 years ago

should be okay now...

Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Thu Mar 28 13:55:01 2019, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MMR1988
Certification: hold
Comments:
Missing edges where the front underside stud cutouts meet the 'sloped' surface.

Is there a special need for the extra side vertices at the inner side areas (in the front).

======================================================================
At Thu Mar 28 14:45:01 2019, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: UR
Comments:
Points melted....a relic from the Beginning

Lines:
...Is this really necessary at such a shallow angle?

there are the condlines ...as also Magnus suggested (see his comments further up)

Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Thu Mar 28 15:50:02 2019, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MMR1988
Certification: novote
Comments:
If the real part has an visible edge you should use an edge. If it is smooth rounded, then you should use a condline.
I think, Magnus', suggestion comes from checking with edger2.
But we can wait for another reviewer to get a more clear opinion.

======================================================================
At Thu Mar 28 18:05:01 2019, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: novote
Comments:

I think Max is right. My condlines should be edges.

I see a thin gap here:
0 !LPE VERTEX 4.457 19.599 -107.704
0 !LPE VERTEX -4.457 19.599 -107.704
I think it should be y = 19.559


======================================================================
At Thu Mar 28 19:30:02 2019, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: UR
Comments:
Good....thanks both

Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Thu Mar 28 20:35:01 2019, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: UR
Comments:
seen to late...Magnus...closed gaps now

how do you find such little things?...great

======================================================================
At Thu Mar 28 22:00:01 2019, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: novote
Comments:

Years of practice using only LDDP, LDView and LDPE.
In this case, the edge lines were starting to fade out when zooming away from the part.

I think these edges are rather pointless:
2 4 -16 20 -116 16 20 -116
2 4 -16 20 -110 -16 20 -116
2 4 16 20 -110 16 20 -116


======================================================================
At Fri Mar 29 13:40:02 2019, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: UR
Comments:
they are....done

Existing certification-votes were deleted.
======================================================================
At Sat Mar 30 08:40:02 2019, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: certify
Comments:

Great!

======================================================================
At Sat Mar 30 13:15:01 2019, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MMR1988
Certification: certify
Comments:
Perfect!


© 2001-2018 LDraw.org, see Legal Info for details.

LEGO® is a registered trademark of the LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, endorse, or authorize this site. Visit the official Lego website at http://www.lego.com/.
The LDraw system is a completely unofficial, community run free CAD system which represents official parts produced by the LEGO company.
The LDraw Parts Tracker is maintained and developed by voluntary members of the LDraw organisation.