|
|
 | | Re: DAT format question
|
| Bram Lambrecht wrote in message <19990921.200045.509...no.com>... (...) My experience has been that as flexibility increases, complexity increases. I'm usually quite anal about coding objects to always behave in a very structured, predictable (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: DAT format question
|
| (...) Why not? I've done this when a part didn't exist (I used a box.dat for the center of the 1x2x2 shock absorber) (...) Part developers often use different colors to make sure shapes are matching up correctly. Also, atterned parts and some other (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: DAT format question
|
| (...) Probably too restrictive. Most (I think) part developers design their parts in the models directory to keep them separate from the official parts. Mock-ups and crude outlines of parts should also be kept out of the parts directory. I like the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: DAT format question
|
| Would it be too restrictive of my CAD program to require that all parts (and nothing but parts) are stored in the parts and parts/s directories, and all primitives (and nothing but primitives) are stored in the p directory? Models could exist (...) (25 years ago, 21-Sep-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: DAT format question
|
| Gary Williams wrote in message ... (...) with. Doh', this wouldn't be a complete solution, either. If the user opens a model, I'd still have to determine which external references in it are parts and which are embedded models/subassemblies. And if (...) (25 years ago, 21-Sep-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
