 | | Re: Question on dithered color subfiling —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | (...) While this is no longer a requirement, I feel that parts conforming to the old standard are not wrong and a hold vote based solely on this would probably be excessive. I would, however, make note of it in the review comments. -Orion (19 years ago, 9-Sep-05, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Question on dithered color subfiling —Jan Folkersma
|
| | | | | Right. As stated in (URL) I had my part certified in no time (URL) but it being published in a new 'parts update' is taking a bit longer... :) (19 years ago, 9-Sep-05, to lugnet.cad, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Question on dithered color subfiling —Imre Papp
|
| | | | | (...) Thanks, that was my default assumption. I only needed a confirmation from the LSC. Ampi (19 years ago, 10-Sep-05, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Question on dithered color subfiling —Willy Tschager
|
| | | | (...) looks like we have to do more chit chat how this advise shall be applied. please read my consideration at ldraw's PT: (URL) avoid further confusion I'm in favor to work out a general note which could be used by the reviewers to tag old parts (...) (19 years ago, 11-Sep-05, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
