|
|
 | | what's wrong with the POTM email?
|
| I was intending to submit 61810.dat to the POTM contest (well, OK, little are my chances, probably, but you never know :) ) though I can't send the email: (...) I did double-check that I'm using the right email address, even sent it another time but (...) (16 years ago, 26-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | Re: Fixing the liftarms
|
| (...) We are aware of this and do have a plan to rectify it. Steve and I went through this a while ago, with a view to distinguishing between beams and lift-arms and consistently naming the beams. I recall our thinking was that "liftarm" would (...) (16 years ago, 24-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | Re: Fixing the liftarms
|
| (...) Excellent Willy. That's awesome. I still hate the names but at least they're consistent. Tim (16 years ago, 21-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | Re: Fixing the liftarms
|
| (...) When I standardized the headers of the certified parts at the PT back in August 2008 I tried to rename them as following: "1 x 1" are called Beams example: (URL) X 0.5" are called liftarm example: (URL) aware that only certified parts apply to (...) (16 years ago, 20-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | Fixing the liftarms
|
| Hi all (and especially Chris Dee), I find the inconsistency in the naming of liftarms in LDraw to be quite frustrating and was wondering whether or not it would be worth setting a standard name class and sticking to it. Here's a sample list: Technic (...) (16 years ago, 20-Jan-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
|
