Subject:
|
Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Apr 1999 23:32:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1000 times
|
| |
|
|
what do you mean use of arm1.dat? should i have used arm2.dat?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
| Jonathan wilson: (...) I mean that you should not have referenced ARM1.DAT in a file purporting to represent part #30014. Granted, ARM1.DAT is the least incorrect of all subparts that you could have referenced, but it is still incorrect. (...) No. (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: part: brick 1 x 2 with arm 2F
|
| (...) Is this an attempt to model part #30014? If so, it is incorrect in at least three very obvious ways -- (a) the vertical placement of ARM1.DAT, (b) the use of ARM1.DAT in the first place, and (c) the use of 3004.DAT, where a new element should (...) (26 years ago, 12-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
