|
|
 | | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
| (...) This might be the encouragement I need to dive further into parts development. However, I would need to have a copy of the part, and I doubt I would be able to work on anything too complicated right away (ex, no (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) No, it isn't. BUT, there is very little functional difference between what is currently written and the suggestion above. As far as the function of a rendering engine is concerned, there is no difference -- if a file doesn't specify the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
| The reason why I haven't responded to this thread earlier was the complicated language that kept me from fully understanding what the point is. What I now understand about the guild is: * You are fueled by frustration over the juniorisation of (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: L3PLiTE?
|
| (...) It should be not only flexible, but also generic ! by this I mean, don't assign relations with actual parts to define the connection types. Try to define the physical/mechanical property, and not particularities in some uses. (...) So these (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Influencing what parts people work on
|
| As you know, I tend to see *everything* in terms of paying for it, or at least motivation, at any rate. I think John raises some good points and I don't have answers, but I do have some musings. (...) You made those parts for your own reasons, which (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
