LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Full Version: The Case for Underside Fillet Primitives
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I didn't get any respons on my hold vote at PT, and maybe you have corrected your fillet allready, but I feel that I must act before you dig yourself deeper into this.

IMHO, there is a flaw in your design.
Let me try to explain what I mean. Why did LEGO change this design?
I say it's because it is impossible to connect a 1x1 brick to the underside of a big brick. There isn't enough surfaces to give a stud enough clutch power. It simply can't connect. Have a look at my picture.

[Image: filletstuds.png]

The new design has a thinner outer wall and gives place for tiny boxes along the inside.
The reinforcements are there to give more surfaces for the stud connection.
It is possible to connect a 1x1 brick in any place, on the underside of a new big brick.
In the old design it is only possible to place a 1x1 brick in the corners.

The current design of your stux-primitives have many issues.

If I were to try to make these, I'd go for only two new files.
Why?
Because the distance between two studs are always the same, as so is the distance between a stud and the surrounding outer walls.
I would make one file creating the wall between two studs, and one file creating the wall between a stud and the wall. And then use those.

I started writing this two hour ago, but didn't have time to finish it. I now see that Chris has the same idea.
It's not as though I haven't thought of the two basic fillets solution. It did occur to me, in fact. However, I chose to go away from it for this reason: When you have these, you'll still need at least 2 more for the sidewalls (which could be done in a couple different ways. Why? Because when you have these walls, by necessity you're going to need to break up the sidewalls to avoid T-Junctions, especially in the case of the reinforced versions. So you're still going to end up with 4 primitives: two for the interior fillets (stud-to-stud and stud-to-wall), and two more for the inner walls (let's say corners and straights, although other options exist).

Further, isn't part of the point of primitives to reduce file size? Using my solution, the file sizes are drastically smaller than what they would be using this solution. Consider my 4x6 brick, which is the smallest one (and thus benefits the least from them). It uses exactly TWO primitives to model the entire bottom. Using your solution, you'd need: 2 stud primitives, 1 stud-to-stud fillet primitive, 6 stud-to-wall fillet primitives, 2 straight-wall primitives, and 4 corner-wall primitives for a total of 15 primitives. That's 13 fewer lines in my file. And the savings only goes up with the size of the part. What will the savings be for my 8x16? Meanwhile, with your solution, we go from 5 files to 4, although the file sizes of the 4 would be a bit smaller than the 5, but overall, I think you'd save much more disk space with my solution.


Oh, and Chris, in response to your other post above: I don't intend to submit/resubmit anything until this is resolved. Also, the whole point I'm making here is that they shouldn't have "stud" in the name, so the parts that I currently have on there would need to be renamed, and I would re-name my other parts before I'd submit them.
OK, so after some consideration, I think I've reached a compromise solution: 3 types of fillet primitives. There will be one stud to stud fillet, and two stud to wall fillets: a fillet attached to one "side wall" and a fillet attached to two "corner walls". I've attached an update 4x6 with the reinforced fillets to this post, and will post the plain ones shortly (can't post them all at once due to forum restrictions). Also note: I've re-worked the reinforced fillets per Magnus's observations (this is something I had failed to consider while creating these, although I should have. Have patience, I'm still learning). they should now "connect" properly with studs.

Let me know what you think. If you guys are ok with this, I'll go ahead and put them on the PT along with the updated part files, and Chris can delete my stux primitives.
Here are the plain fillets as well (with a 4x6 example).
I like it a lot, but I'll step back and let someone else be the judge.
Hey guys, I'd like to move forward with this one way or another, so some feedback would be nice, especially from Chris. I keep seeing my un-certified files on the PT and want to do what is necessary to certify them.
This looks a much better structured approach. I'd just like some tweaks to the file naming convention:

Code:
fillet[pr][012][nsw].dat
      [pr]          : p=plain; r=reinforced
          [012]     : number of adjoining side-walls
               [nsw]: n=narrow (2LDu); 3=standard (3LDu); w=wide (4LDu) - to match stud4f.. nomenclature

So fil3r -> filletr0s, fil3r-cw -> filletr2s, fil3r-sw -> filletr1s
and fil3 -> filletp0s, fil3-cw -> filletp2s, fil3-sw -> filletp1s
Pages: 1 2