 | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions —Don Heyse
|
| | | (...) This is a really old issue. I think the previous consensus was that (URL) T-Junctions are bad.> Look at the bottom of the message for the comments on T-Junctions. Actually this is such an old issue, I could swear there was an ASCII art (...) (17 years ago, 4-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | (...) Much as I'd like to agree on this, I don't think the fact that nobody posted back then disagreeing with my statement really counts as consensus. I pointed out the problem, but didn't ask for opinions on whether parts should be modeled that (...) (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | (...) Heh, I think I found the (URL) ASCII art>. I coulda sworn it made it into a FAQ somewhere though. Oh well. Have fun, Don (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) T-junctions are a quality issue in part files. I don't think they should be strictly forbidden (that is, having T-junctions is not a reason to hold a part file from official release). Generally, I wouldn't even say that a part with T-junctions (...) (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Part Authors: opinions sought on T-Junctions —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | (...) Sounds reasonable to me. Any chance a T-junctions FAQ could be created on the parts tracker reference page, and the above could make it into a policy statement in the parts review FAQ? Most of my original post here could be used as the FAQ, (...) (17 years ago, 5-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| | | | |
