 | | Bugs with the Parts Tracker
|
|
[emphasis Franklin's] (...) Here's a good example of why the current nomenclature is messed up (in my humble, yet aggressively vociferous, opinion). (URL) new file does not -- repeat ***NOT*** -- need any unofficial parts, and yet it says (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) There may be merit in somehow boosting the position of the subfiles themselves in the list (if it's true that people only work on the highest listed items and ignore the bottom stuff... I know it's true for me). Perhaps the more parts use an (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) FWIW, I agree with this. Though I am a parts reviewer, I don't have a terribly extensive collection of pieces to compare the LDraw ones with. And the Real World doesn't leave much time to review parts! --Ryan (explaining his credentials to (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Legacy Files on the Parts Tracker
|
|
(...) THANK YOU!!! I've been arguing this very point (mostly off-list) with Steve for the better part of three years now! Pummelling the deceased equine, Franklin (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | msg to "technog"...
|
|
You have a "hold" vote on this file: (URL) post an image of the gap. Thanks, Franklin (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
