I'd like to reply to Allen:
The stugs allow a massive compression of both filesize on harddisk and internal memory storage of a part.
For example, a big baseplate with 32x32 studs will shrink dramatically.
The effect is easily achieved because the usage of stugs shrinks the references to studs
logarithmically.
Regarding scaling:
I think that the discussion currently is led much too formally.
The stugs are very effective, and the current spec allows extending them to underside studs as well.
Those need Y scaling the same way as the studs do.
So simply change the wording, and we're done. I suggest:
"To stugs, the same scaling rules as for studs apply."
That's it.
Allen Wrote:Personally, I think stugs of tubes is really getting out of hand. What's so bad about just replicating the stud/tube/widget n times?No, no, it really is not getting out of hand.
The stugs allow a massive compression of both filesize on harddisk and internal memory storage of a part.
For example, a big baseplate with 32x32 studs will shrink dramatically.
The effect is easily achieved because the usage of stugs shrinks the references to studs
logarithmically.
Regarding scaling:
I think that the discussion currently is led much too formally.
The stugs are very effective, and the current spec allows extending them to underside studs as well.
Those need Y scaling the same way as the studs do.
So simply change the wording, and we're done. I suggest:
"To stugs, the same scaling rules as for studs apply."
That's it.