 | | Re: Problems with LDCfgalt.ldr and between LDConfig.ldr and LDDP
|
|
(...) I seem to remember that part of the reason to have LDCfgalt.ldr was for people who prefer the colored edge lines. Actually, it seems like that was a big part of the reason to have the file. So why drop that functionality? Steve (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: 11-16 primitives?
|
|
(...) My thinking is the 'ragged' format has the least impact - if there are no long part nambers, then the output PARTS.LST would exactly match the classic format, without the user having to know anything about long/short part nambers. Of course, (...) (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with LDCfgalt.ldr and between LDConfig.ldr and LDDP
|
|
(...) LDCfgalt.ldr has been kept for backwards compatibility but colors have been substituted with grey to encourage the shift to the new LDConfig.ldr file and colors. w. (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Problems with LDCfgalt.ldr and between LDConfig.ldr and LDDP
|
|
I noticed two issues with the new versions of LDConfig.ldr: - LDCfgalt.ldr contains only grey colors (#c1c1c1) with black edge. Though I never used LDCfgalt this seems weird to me. - When I install the new LDConfig.ldr, LDDP replacement feature is (...) (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Quirks with Peeron part inventory images
|
|
(...) Hmmm. All the images are re-generated as part of a Parts Update, so that's probably the source of this problem. But nothing has changed in that process since 2009-01. However, at around that time there were problems with the server where these (...) (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad)
|
