System and Studless Techinc Standards Problem
2011-12-31, 23:18 (This post was last modified: 2012-08-04, 22:13 by Tim Gould.)
2011-12-31, 23:18 (This post was last modified: 2012-08-04, 22:13 by Tim Gould.)
A while back I posted about a little curiosity I had spotted while modelling a new part. It was not much of an issue there, but today I discovered a part where the problem is much greater.
The problem is summarised as follows:
1) We model studless technic connections (eg. liftarms, pin connectors) at 18LDU wide, which is slightly too small for the real ones
2) We model technic holes at 10LDU from the top of a brick, which is slightly too low (9LDU is closer). This difference is actually large enough that connections from a system brick like 87087 to a technic brick like 6541 are forbidden in official models.
3) When studless technic connections are merged with bricks these two problems combine to make LDraw parts not match flush at the top, while real parts will be flush.
There are more parts appearing like 85943 and it might be worth coming up with a standard workaround for these parts.
In the case of 85943 it was modelled with 20LDU liftarms which I think is not ideal. Better, IMO, would be to slope down over about 5LDU at the join and then leave the rest at the 18LDU diameter.
Thoughts?
Tim
The problem is summarised as follows:
1) We model studless technic connections (eg. liftarms, pin connectors) at 18LDU wide, which is slightly too small for the real ones
2) We model technic holes at 10LDU from the top of a brick, which is slightly too low (9LDU is closer). This difference is actually large enough that connections from a system brick like 87087 to a technic brick like 6541 are forbidden in official models.
3) When studless technic connections are merged with bricks these two problems combine to make LDraw parts not match flush at the top, while real parts will be flush.
There are more parts appearing like 85943 and it might be worth coming up with a standard workaround for these parts.
In the case of 85943 it was modelled with 20LDU liftarms which I think is not ideal. Better, IMO, would be to slope down over about 5LDU at the join and then leave the rest at the 18LDU diameter.
Thoughts?
Tim