Travis Cobbs Wrote:Windows (like this train windscreen part pair)?
Thanks Travis! I blame "daddy brain" for not being able to come up with even one snapping window example myself. :-)
This is an interesting example because it illustrates a principle of a connection system: it may be advantageous to specify the "ultimate" behavior of two parts completely rather than describe their component parts.
In other words, a window might snap in via multiple joints, all of which have some freedom, but when they are -all- snapped, the effective connection is rigid.
I think it is hugely advantageous to simply specify this kind of case as a rigid connection.
- For programs like Mario's that don't aim to do physics simulation, deriving "rigid" from lots of joints is non-trivial.
- For features like Bricksmiths' "insert related" (similar to what Mario does in that it's an aid in "correct" building) having a single joint that fully specifies the connection makes part placement a lot easier.
- Even when we have a physics engine, they tend to jitter and have floating point heebie-jeebies when collisions are involved; the quality of alignment will be better with a pre-specified rigid body.
Cheers
Ben