+- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org)
+-- Forum: Models and Parts (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-18.html)
+--- Forum: Parts Authoring (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-19.html)
+--- Thread: Scaling of Studs in the Y direction? (/thread-8513.html)
Scaling of Studs in the Y direction? - Mark Kennedy - 2013-03-08
What are the official rules for scaling studs along the y axis? Am I correct that it is acceptable for underside studs, but not top studs? Personally I find no problem with the scaling of type 2 studs, but I've seen others place hold votes on files containing scaled type 2 studs.
Re: Scaling of Studs in the Y direction? - Chris Dee - 2013-03-08
See the primitives reference:
Quote:Ideally they should not be scaled in the {y} dimension either, to allow the (potential) accurate substitution of chamfered smooth-edged studs by high-quality renderers [but this rule is flouted in the regular brick files, where stud4 is scaled by 5 to generate the underside tube].
Re: Scaling of Studs in the Y direction? - Jude Parrill - 2013-08-13
See, this is what annoys me about some of the "rules" around here: there are many cases when they are broken, and other cases where they're strictly upheld, with no discerning factors. If you look at stud2s and stud4s, they're basically identical except for a slightly longer radius, yet one is regularly allowed to be scaled while the other isn't. If your going to make up rules and expect people to follow them (especially new builders like me), then you'd better well enforce them for ALL builders, even long-time ones like Philo and Steffen.
How hard would it be to create a new underside tube primitive for bricks which is scaled appropriately? I don't think it would be very hard.
Re: Scaling of Studs in the Y direction? - Travis Cobbs - 2013-08-13
It's no big deal, but I believe that "chamfered" in the primitive reference should be replaced by "filleted". (Fillet refers to rounded corners, while chamfer refers to corners with an straight angular chunk cut out.) Having said that, it could be that people know generally what chamfer means in this context, but not fillet, so that the inaccurate word is in fact better.
Re: Scaling of Studs in the Y direction? - Travis Cobbs - 2013-08-13
I'm not a part author, but I'm confused. I don't see how either stud2s or stud4s would be useful without the ability to scale in Y to match the slope of whatever they're placed against. It does appear to me that stud2s is for top-side studs, while stud4s is for underside ones. (There appears to be a mistake in the description of stud2s in the primitive reference.)
Re: Scaling of Studs in the Y direction? - Chris Dee - 2013-08-13
Jude Parrill Wrote:If you look at stud2s and stud4s, [...], yet one is regularly allowed to be scaled while the other isn't.Where does it say (or who said) that? If it is written somewhere, I think this is a documentation error. The sloping stud primitives stud2s and stud4s have minimal value unless they can be scaled.
Re: Scaling of Studs in the Y direction? - Chris Dee - 2013-08-13
Travis Cobbs Wrote:(There appears to be a mistake in the description of stud2s in the primitive reference.)Thanks for pointing that out. Now fixed: "Underside stud for slope bricks." --> "Hollow stud for inverted slope bricks."
Re: Scaling of Studs in the Y direction? - Tim Gould - 2013-08-13
Hi Chris,
Surely these parts should be an exceptional case given that they do not have smooth edges, are on the underside, and are thus unlikely to be replace be any fancy version.
Otherwise we need a whole new set to replace something which could so easily be scaled.
Tim
Re: Scaling of Studs in the Y direction? - Chris Dee - 2013-08-13
Yes, that would work. Allow y-axis scaling on underside connectors (which are not really studs anyway), but disallow on upper-side studs (stud, stud2, stud6, stud9, stud10, stud13, stud15, stud17, studel and their derivatives), with a special exception for stud2s.
Any counter-arguments?