 | | Re: "All zeros" warning (Was: Parts Tracker Activity Page)
|
|
(...) Yes, I believe they are. I haven't rechecked lately to see if anything has changed. If I get a chance in the next few days I will recheck it. (...) I understand and agree. I will cease making any comments on them. (...) really? ok. (...) Paul (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker - Using L3P-check to scan submitted files
|
|
(...) Looks good. (...) I have used the phrase "0 end of subpart", "0 end of file", etc in some of the parts I have made. Will these get rejected? I usually always try to keep them lowercase. (...) I'm not sure about this one. I feel that new parts (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker - Using L3P-check to scan submitted files
|
|
Steve: (...) I assume that L3P reports the relevant lines, so it is trivial to remove one of the offending ones. (...) Right. Set a reasonably large threshold (0.1?) and reject based on it. Jacob (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker - Using L3P-check to scan submitted files
|
|
(...) [snip areas of agreement] (...) Which is sloppy, but not a killer error. (...) I didn't list the non-coplanar message with the "reject" group is because the thresholds of coplanarity are variable, not fixed. So we need to agree on what level (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker - Using L3P-check to scan submitted files
|
|
Steve: (...) [...] Seems okay. (...) [...] Seems okay. (...) I would say yes. The last two definitely should, since they indicate unneeded resource use. The first one should really be split in to two triangles, if it really is intended to be (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
