 | | Re: L(EGO)Draw part discrepancies
|
|
(...) against official or non-official (...) differences. (...) comment? (LUT version may not match real parts, see (...) I measured the real part and confirm that the LUT-part is correct! Matching the PT-Version (Trans-White) with the LUT-Version (...) (18 years ago, 11-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Are multiple AUTHOR tags legit?
|
|
(...) I think there should only ever be one primary author - nowadays, the one that takes the responsibility of submitting to the Parts Tracker. During the CA header migration, where I have encountered this and assessed that it was a true (...) (18 years ago, 11-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 (...) (18 years ago, 8-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 (...) (18 years ago, 8-Oct-07, 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 (...) (18 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
