 | | Re: Developing LDBoxer Again
|
|
(...) --snip-- (...) This sounds like an excellent development. I had to hand alter some of my Boxer'd MOCs to get the bottom detailing back in. And I think I forgot some. Tim (15 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDBoxer Available at SourceForge
|
|
(...) I've played around a little with my old LDBoxer program. The new version auto-boxes a lot more safe-to-box parts than previous versions. Added support for parts without studs and parts without bottom details (URL) Replace button is made (...) (15 years ago, 21-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Developing LDBoxer Again
|
|
After seven years of thinking and hesitating, I have decided to improve my utility progam LDBoxer. There are lots of room for improvements, but to begin with, I will fix a couple of bugs I have discovered. Then I will focus on making two new (...) (15 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) Yes, and no, or rather, maybe. In Delphi you would do something like Write(Format('%g', [Value])); i.e more or less the same format strings as in C. But, it is type-safe at runtime :-) (15 years ago, 12-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: number notation in official parts
|
|
(...) Thanks for the info. I've always used perl scripts to convert oddly formatted data to a consistent format and then read it like that. Nice to know I don't always have to. If it could only read some of the more bizarre Fortran formats I'd never (...) (15 years ago, 12-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
