^^.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogman
No offense ross, your advice is good, but really, does this need a sticky?
Maybe make a thread that houses alot of different modelling standards/techniques for doing the most common tasks. Then sticky that.
Printable View
^^.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogman
No offense ross, your advice is good, but really, does this need a sticky?
Maybe make a thread that houses alot of different modelling standards/techniques for doing the most common tasks. Then sticky that.
Nobody will read it. They'll just assume they know how to do them, then fuck them up.
Is there a reason that those parts are not the same?
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t...nnydrawing.png
They are the same. You just don't know how to read blueprint measurements and tolerances.
I am pretty sure they are not the same, there is a 90 degree angle in the other pics, there is not detailed breakdown of that area that i can see and no explaination of a 90 either.
They're the same, the flat of the underside got lost in the image resolution and line thickness. Damn, dude, they're the same. They're fucking MIL SPEC. Do you know what that means?
I presume it means military specs.
And if the image was lost in resolution then they are not the same.
Was just wondering is all.
I can just make out the flats, it's pretty obvious that it's the image's fault. The rail is the same regardless of whether the image lost the flat section there in resolution, or if it suddenly grew hot pink bloody polka dots all over it instead. Mil spec is mil spec, they're exactly the same.
It was a simple fucking question.
And it was answered, don't have a whinge about it just because you thought you knew best.