 | | Re: Is anyone working on 32745?
|
|
(...) Do you fancy a divide and conquer approach? If we each did different sections it might make it more possible. At the least it is a fairly easy part to subdivide. Tim (17 years ago, 28-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Is anyone working on 32745?
|
|
(...) I wanted to start that part some month ago, but at a closer look I decided to not doing it because it is a real challenge. But I want that part very, very much. So please go ahead and make my dream come true. cu mikeheide (17 years ago, 27-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Is anyone working on 32745?
|
|
Hi all, Just thought I'd check to see if anyone was working on part 32475 ((URL) It's a horrid part to work on so I'm hoping someone has but realise it's probably unlikely. Thanks, Tim (17 years ago, 27-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Inappropriate(?) use of stud.dat in 30035.dat
|
|
(...) You are right, but there are only three lines of code (easily created with MLCad) that would be substituted with such a new primitive. I think it is not worth. cu mikeheide (17 years ago, 26-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Inappropriate(?) use of stud.dat in 30035.dat
|
|
(...) OK, I sent an updated version to the tracker admins, and BFCd it while I was at it. --Travis (17 years ago, 26-Mar-08, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
