 | | Re: Assembled parts, ~ and categories —Sergio Reano
|
| | | (...) Hi, I read the above article and is OK, but many parts do not follow these requirements: for example part 71427C01.DAT distributed as official is named as assembly but contains the whole part definition inside with no references to any (...) (14 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Assembled parts, ~ and categories —Michael Heidemann
|
| | | | | (...) The part you mentioned is certified a long time ago and rules changes over the time. So you will find surely old part in the library that are not according our current rules. Also the ...Cxx only advices that the real part is assembled by some (...) (14 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Assembled parts, ~ and categories —Chris Dee
|
| | | | (...) Please understand that the LDraw Parts Library is over 12 years old and standards evolve over time. Things that were done in 1999, when 71427c01.dat was created, wouldn't necessarily be done the same way now. *dNN.dat files are parts with (...) (14 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Assembled parts, ~ and categories —Sergio Reano
|
| | | | (...) I can understand the problem of aged parts, but, again from a programmer approach, I have to manage both "old" and "new" parts, so it will be very helpful if all parts can follow the same coding and naming standard. Please, consider the (...) (14 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Assembled parts, ~ and categories —Chris Dee
|
| | | | (...) Maybe you are trying to interpret too much from the naming convention. A composite part (*cNN.dat) isn't necessarily comprised of parts that can move relative to each other, It might just be made of two or more separately moulded elements that (...) (14 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
