 | | Re: New Part: x744.dat - Technic Gear 42 Tooth
|
|
The problem is I can't confirm postings with long lines while using webmail instead of the pop server I currently am unable to access. I uploaded a better version at: (URL) problem is that when using BFC primitives, they often "disappear" for me in (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: 3867 Baseplate 16 x 16 with Island Pattern
|
|
(...) Yes that's it, but my version is that the water is alreddy hardcoded with blue and the baseplate is gray. What version is better? CU Bernd (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Part numbers
|
|
Hi all, I have found at a 30117 - 'Panel 10 x 10 x 2&1/3 Quarter Saucer Top' the number 30320 (it's a transp. light green one). So my question is what about this two diffrent numbers on the same part and are there other parts with different numbers? (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New Part: x744.dat - Technic Gear 42 Tooth
|
|
Thanks Tore (...) and I was wondering if the file may have got corupted? I can post the error message if that would be helpful. Best Regards Chris (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Requesting another plug-in for LDDesignPad
|
|
(...) Ah, I see what you mean (or I think I do)! I don't have the time to try it out right now, but I look forward to trying this. Thanks! --Ryan (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think no. If it were so, it would stifle input from those who want to help, but have never (yet?) authored a part. I understand that one who is a parts author would possibly have a better eye for detail in reviewing; it would merely need to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes: [snipped ludicrously useful tip for BFC checking] (...) Uh, increase the standard day to 48 hours??????? 8?) ROSCO (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) I think "have to be" is a bit strong, however "highly recommended" would be good if you can squeeze it in there somehow 8?) I know I learnt a lot about reviewing (and authoring!) from the comments I got from other reviewers about parts I've (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | FAQ for Part Reviewers (was: Re: BFC and Primitives)
|
|
(...) It was pointed out to me, offline, that one key question not addressed in the FAQ is this: "Do you have to be a part author to be a part reviewer?" What do you all think about this? Yes? No? Have No Idea? LMK. Steve (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC and Primitives
|
|
(...) I don't think you're alone in feeling this way, Ryan. So, are you ready to sign up as a reviewer now? :) (...) Hmm. I could add a link to my .sig file... Seriously, if anyone has more info for the Parts Tracker FAQ, I'd be happy to add it to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
