 | | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) Sorry, I'm a little bit slow. Exactly how am I supposed to do that with 973p11.dat? And then make this a generic routine for a utility to handle automatically? (...) My opinion is that neither MLCad nor MovedTo.exe messes anything up. I think (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) I had a look at 973p11.dat and I see what you mean. I'm not sure. (...) The rendering code is very neccessary. Not all LDraw programs automatically detect the fact the a file ahas been moved. If there were no rending code the the model could (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
"Tore Eriksson" <tore.eriksson@mbox3...wipnet.se> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hu4JnF.15r3@lugnet.com... <SNIP> (...) 0 (...) 0 (...) such. (...) think (...) change of (...) rendering (...) MLCad does not mess it up, but doesn't detect more levels (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) It did for me. When MLCad found the refernce to 973p11.dat and asked if I wanted to upgrade, it changed all the "973p11.dat" references to "973p1a,.dat" references. Note the ",". -Orion (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
Please have a look at my suggestion on how to solve this problem, and let me know what you think: (URL) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
"Tore Eriksson" <tore.eriksson@mbox3...wipnet.se> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hu5oLv.Eu4@lugnet.com... (...) me (...) But this is just a workarround to avoid any message. It won't solve the problem. I could imagine, doing a repetative check for (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
