Subject:
|
Re: Instead of ~Moved to
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:45:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
14244 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> Yikes!
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 threshold. And even if you
don't agree with me now, I'm sure we'll get there soon the way things are going
right now.
/Tore
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Instead of ~Moved to
|
| (...) 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. (...) (14 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, (...) (14 years ago, 20-Jan-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Instead of ~Moved to
|
| (...) <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 (...) (14 years ago, 20-Jan-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
