Philippe \Philo\" Hurbain Wrote:I agree that there is a problem for a few pieces such as this one, but I don't see a good solution avoiding rewriting all Technic parts...
No of course not. This would be absolutely the worst solution.
Quote:For this specific part I don't see such a big problem with present solution but I wouldn't object if it was modelled with a sloped top on liftarm section to have the tip 18ldu wide.
It would be nice to have a general rule though. eg.
model liftarm tips at 18LDU diameter and slope in if necessary
or
in such cases model the part at 20LDU diameter
I think we'll be seeing more of these parts in the future as system model designers are encouraged to use studless technic to make bigger models with fewer parts. It's already happened twice in 2011.
Quote:Quote:2) We model technic holes at 10LDU from the top of a brick, which is slightly too low (9LDU is closer).According to LDD models, it's exactly 9.5 ldu.
So probably liftarms should be closer to 19 LDU diameter.