 | | Re: Instead of ~Moved to —Joshua Delahunty
|
| | | (...) <snip> (...) (the "fake" number 111 sticks around, and the official design number 2222 points to it) Yikes! So you want everyone stuck with 111 for all eternity? With the current system, I'm free to remove 111.dat if I don't want it, and end (...) (15 years ago, 20-Jan-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Instead of ~Moved to —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Instead of ~Moved to —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | (...) I think there is some part of your equation that we don't realize/understand? I can view all my LDRAW models without any updating, thanks to the "moved to" concept. The models doesn't become obsolete even though the part numbers are updated. (...) (15 years ago, 20-Jan-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Instead of ~Moved to —Joshua Delahunty
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
