 | | Re: Parts vs subparts for compound parts
|
|
(...) There isn't always a flat rule for every case. And we'e got plenty of 'legacy' files that don't conform to current rules. (...) Generally, a unique number for each file. If we don't know any of the numbers, then we might use s-suffixes on a (...) (20 years ago, 31-Aug-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts vs subparts for compound parts
|
|
(...) That's why I want to know for sure what to do for new authored parts. (I can't always look how existing parts were done, as these may not be conform to current rules, like you said.) (...) Many windows have just a simple rectangular glass (...) (20 years ago, 31-Aug-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts vs subparts for compound parts
|
|
(...) SNIP (...) For to solve the hold vote on this part, I think, that the current x322.dat should go into the s/ folder because this is not a PART that I can buy. So the file with the metal portion should be instead x322.dat and with the light (...) (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts vs subparts for compound parts
|
|
(...) "A part I can buy" is not how we determine where to place a file. Since x322 represents a solid piece that a modeler may need to interact with directly (that is, give it a color). Looking at the files involved, the file locations and (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts vs subparts for compound parts
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Niels Karsdorp wrote: (I've > read that there's a major update on classic windows in the pipeline.) (...) Yes, see (URL) This shows how I decided to organise these files a while back. The CA header conversion is nearing (...) (17 years ago, 8-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
