STL is acceptable to all rp machines does not mean that we should not think
beyond it. The hardware capabilities of some of the machines is to produce
an exact slice where as in STL we get only a polygon contour. We can not make
a part better than the software model. Thus I strongly feel that being too
much dependent on STL is hindering the progress of RP.
ADB
> >Better STL translator!!!!!! >>
> I know we have had big discussions about the merits and failings of the stl
> format already. I was interested to read about the Fockele und Schwarze SLA
> wich doesn't use STL at all! I can guess how they do it. They use ProE to
> output succesive crossections in HPGL. (Pretty straightforward since keyboard
> macros are facilitated in ProE.) Then Materialize to create the supports. They
> even expose different types of geometry with different hatching?, for less
> distortion and curl. As long as we are stuck with the STL format accuracy and
> surface finish will be limited. Its one thing to defend that format if there
> isn't any other way. But those guys have been doing it for several years now.
> Why aren't WE?
> Andy Scott
> Lockheed Martin Aerospace
>
> For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>
-- ___________________________________________________________________ ! ! ! A.D.Bhatt ! ! (Lecturer, M.N.R.Engg. College, ! ! Allahabadl) Phone(O) +91 512 597838 ! ! C/o Prof. S. G. Dhande Tel-fax +91 512 597180 ! ! Research Scholor email adatt@iitk.ac.in ! ! CAD-Project ! ! I.I.T. Kanpur ! ! INDIA ! ! Pin 208016 ! !___________________________________________________________________! !EMAIL ADDRESS CHANGED adatt@iitk.ac.in ! --------------------------------------------------------------------For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:47:32 EEST