|
|
 | | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
| (...) I missed responding to this one specific point. In general, aliases amongst the primitives would be a bad thing. They would primarily add more files to an already too-large list of primitives, and would only provide duplicate function. In this (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
| | | | | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
| (...) The consistency is in the basic four fractions: 1-4, 2-4, 3-4, 4-4. The other measures are (more or less) deliberate inconsistencies to name files that don't fit the basic standard. (...) Yes, that would be an incorrect consideration. Part (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
| | | | | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
| (...) It's not really that hard, but my mind recoils at a senseless inconsistency, and this, and the following, are it. Note that I suggested an alias, not move, and certainly not removing the existing names. (...) "0 Circle 1.0". 5-8edge should be (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
| | | | | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
| (...) Great - we are always looking for constructive help. (...) I don't see the benefit from this - the naming convention is well established and existing part authors know how to work with it. Is it that hard to learn? (...) Yes - as I have (...) (20 years ago, 8-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
| | | | | N-Fedge primitives
|
| Hello, everyone. This was posted with NNTP, but seems to have dissappeared somehow, so I'm re-posting with the http interface. My appolgies if it turns up twice. I'm just getting started with LDraw, and returning to the lego-driven days of my youth, (...) (20 years ago, 8-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
|
