 | | Re: Keyword in description missing
|
|
While we are at it, I think part 3754P01.DAT Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with LL2079 Floating Astronaut Picture should be renamed to Brick 1 x 6 x 5 with LL2079 Floating Astronaut Pattern Jaco (23 years ago, 1-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is the Thickness of Liftarms changing?
|
|
(...) I confirm Pauls measurement. I compared it with a brick and it has the same thickness. This is also needed to connect a pin with the holes. CU Bernd (23 years ago, 1-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is the Thickness of Liftarms changing?
|
|
(...) What are you using to measure with? I use a dial caliper. Paul (23 years ago, 1-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: why I love subfiles...
|
|
(...) I'm going to have to agree with Tore on this one. Subfile are useful for repeated patterns and "without faces" parts, to me, your example seems to use subfiles uneccesarily. -Orion (23 years ago, 1-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.ideas)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is the Thickness of Liftarms changing?
|
|
(...) I've measured these and several others have as well and we all got 18 LDU -Orion (23 years ago, 1-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Why is the Thickness of Liftarms changing?
|
|
(...) Yes that seems strange, as far as I can tell all these liftarms are the same width as a 1xN brick, so should be modelled as 20LDU as the bricks are. ROSCO (23 years ago, 31-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Why is the Thickness of Liftarms changing?
|
|
This part is on the Part Tracker; (URL) 32278 I have has a thickness of .0309" which is approximately 19.77LDU. Why are several of these liftarms getting changed to 18LDU? Paul (23 years ago, 31-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Keyword in description missing
|
|
(...) OK - I'll make it so. Chris (23 years ago, 28-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Keyword in description missing
|
|
(...) I feel pretty strongly that the title for all patterned parts should end in the word Pattern. I would consider this enough of a reason to make the change. (...) Steve (23 years ago, 28-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: why I love subfiles...
|
|
(...) Sorry, I don't get the message at all. In the example you gave, I see no reason for sub-filing at all. On the contrary, to me it looks like a typical example of very unnecessary subfiling. Please be more specific why sub-filing would add (...) (23 years ago, 27-Dec-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.ideas)
|
