|
|
 | | Re: Instead of ~Moved to
|
| (...) I was going to start my response with "I don't understand", but Orion beat me to it. It is absolutely not necessary to update existing models with the replacement file referred to by the "~Moved to" file, but maybe I am missing something about (...) (15 years ago, 20-Jan-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Instead of ~Moved to
|
| (...) You should take heart from the fact that this phenomenon has slowed a GREAT deal in recent times, the number of possible renumbers is way way down, and number accuracy is way up. TLG doesn't tend to switch from solid to hollow studs anymore, (...) (15 years ago, 20-Jan-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Instead of ~Moved to
|
| (...) Hmmm, subparts are used by many parts so I can see how they might be referenced a gazillion times by an extremely large model file like Datsville. (...) What tool makes the movedto.log file that's giving you such trouble? Can it be adjusted to (...) (15 years ago, 20-Jan-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Instead of ~Moved to
|
| (...) I don't understand what you're saying here, Tore. The ~Moved To files prevent the need to update already existing files by providing a back reference to the old part number. This prevents a part from disappearing from a model simply because (...) (15 years ago, 20-Jan-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | | | Re: Instead of ~Moved to
|
| (...) Yes, I know my suggested approach has its obvious downsides. But the current system really makes me Yike!, too. When do we reach the point where the downsides of the current system overturn the advantages? I think we've already passed that (...) (15 years ago, 20-Jan-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
|
