 | | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation —Jetro de Chateau
|
| | | (...) I appreciate your work on this, but I wonder if there aren't other more important changes (albeit probably more difficult ones) that would be of more benefit to the community. I'm referring particularly to the present dichotomy of Beams and (...) (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Technic Beams vs. Liftarms (was Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation) —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | (...) I am surprised by this renewed criticism of the Technic Beam naming as we have worked very hard on resolving that issue over the past few releases. Is your library up-to-date? As mentioned at (URL) most of these issues were resolved in (...) (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Technic Beams vs. Liftarms (was Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation) —Jetro de Chateau
|
| | | | | | (...) Chris, My sincerest apologies for my remark - After double checking I realized that although I had installed the latest updates, I had not purged the unofficial files from the directories and started looking for liftarms to only find half... (...) (15 years ago, 27-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation —Chris Dee
|
| | | | (...) <SNIP> (...) "Peghole" is already used in a few part descriptions in the official library, and there are even primitives named peghole* to support their representation. "Pinhole" is not used in the official library at all. Chris Dee (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
