Subject:
|
Re: Instead of ~Moved to
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:16:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
14910 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.cad, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> > Yikes!
> > [a line or two snipped]
In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> 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.
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, and they're also
really good (TOO good, actually) at changing the design number when mould
changes occur (Peeron is actually a generation behind on the race helmet and the
1x4 lift arm, for instance).
Most if not all of these issues are captured by TLG (again, perhaps TOO well)
via item numbers. But that's a whole other can of worms. A much LARGER and
more concerning one, actually. THAT number easily dwarfs the issues you're
talking about.
But feel better about ~Moved-to :wink:
-- joshuaD
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
