 | | Re: Improving the PT
|
|
I thought of another one, something I *know* I've mentioned before (in various discussions w/ Steve, off-line as well as here on LUGNet)... If a primitive or subfile that has *already* been released (i.e., the file is an **OFFICIAL** file), you (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the Parts Tracker experience
|
|
(...) Sorry, Orion, but I wouldn't use this. If I want to communicate privately with someone, I'll use e-mail. If I don't have his e-mail address, or if I want to post a public, LEGO-related message, I'll use LUGNet. FWIW, I already have ~100kb of (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Primitive tolerances
|
|
(...) Generally parts only need to be authored to 3 decimal places. We decided on 4 DPs for the scalable primitives so that they could be scaled x10 without degrading the quality of the part. One could argue that p/48 primitves should be coded with (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Primitive tolerances
|
|
(...) My understanding was that primitives should have 4 decimal places of accuracy. However, whether or not this is the case, I think that any decimal places that are included should be accurate including appropriate rounding. Just my 2 cents. (...) (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the Parts Tracker experience
|
|
(...) That is a definite snag. Any chance that function can be enhanced to include actual emailings? But still, there are times when direct messaging-links on the PT would be very handy. Steve (21 years ago, 20-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Primitive tolerances
|
|
Can someone tell me what kind of accuracy tolerances we should be working within when it comes to scalable primitives? (URL) have placed a hold vote on this ring. Most all the numbers are within .0002. Is that acceptable or should the numbers be (...) (21 years ago, 19-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the Parts Tracker experience
|
|
(...) How'd I forget that? I've even used the Scan in the past. Certainly easier than the Find function of a web browser. Could we add the file scan to the toolbar, next to the lookup box? Or better (IMO), replace the file name lookup box with a (...) (21 years ago, 19-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the Parts Tracker experience
|
|
(...) How'd I forget that? I've even used the Scan in the past. Certainly easier than the Find function of a web browser. Could we add the file scan to the toolbar, next to the lookup box? Or better (IMO), replace the file name lookup box with a (...) (21 years ago, 19-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the Parts Tracker experience
|
|
(...) This already exists. It's called File Scan and is located on the PT Tools page. -Orion (21 years ago, 19-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Improving the Parts Tracker experience
|
|
(...) How about a search function, similar to the one on PartsRef? Enter a term, and the search engine checks the file names, part names, CATEGORY statements, and KEYWORDS statements for matches. The current PT search function is file name only. (...) (21 years ago, 19-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
