 | | Re: OMR Model Creation/Submission Rules
|
|
(...) But we need to severely minimize the number of incomplete sets. Read Ampi's post. Don't think that we can make anything and everything and put it up there, there must be standards. (...) Yep. (...) No. (...) Read my post on the final file (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Model Creation/Submission Rules
|
|
(...) Correct. (...) Good point. I like the readiness system. Should we have it relative to the number of pieces, so you divide the number of parts by the number of parts in the model to get the percentage? Also, you could multiply it by a certain (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: OMR Model Creation/Submission Rules
|
|
(...) the (...) could (...) Repository. But on (...) errors - (...) large (...) anyways for (...) can strongly (...) Whatever works I guess :) I was thinking of it in a sense that as they are building the model and come across an unmade patterned (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MPD, the OMR, and Incomplete Parts
|
|
(...) OK. You're going to have some funny-looking models, with all those missing parts. Steve (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: part numbers screwed up?
|
|
(...) I took a look at the part files, and it appears (check the comment files in the 9903 update to be 100% sure) the following moves occured: 3942 (Cone 4 x 4 x 2) was moved to 3943. 3939 (Cone 2 x 2 x 2) was moved to 3942. 3951 was moved to 3939, (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
