Roland Melkert Wrote:I agree with Mario on the editor side of things. And as software interested in physics probably needs to go the collision detection route anyway I'm gravitating towards it's not worth the effort.
That said we could decide to apply a variant of method 3 but only on the more simple parts like brick hinges and doors etc. For example with the doorframe you could at -90..0 and 0..90 for the front/back points. The door itself has full 360 (the default). So whenever a connection is made the engine just applies the inner join of the female and male limits.
All other parts use the default 360 freedom (The editor preserves current rotation, and only forces the alignment etc) and let the end user to the final check/corrections.
Hi Roland,
I think you're right, bott re: the door limit being made to work, and rapidly diminishing returns. If I had to make a call for a spec right now, I'd probably do this:
- Connection instances (that is, placements of connection types via meta directives in a part or primitive) can specify range limitations.
- Hinges would have about as much range limit mechanics as sliders get, but no more, e.g. let's not go crazy trying to solve rotation issues.
- An intrepid part author could solve the 'door' problem because the connections can be put directly on the doors (and not on a -highly- reused part like "stud").
- Such "lucky limitations" where a hinge can be sanely limited in its range would be rare as a percent of the library, but perhaps not so rare as a percent of used bricks, weighted by what are interesting to modelers.
Cheers
Ben