 | | Re: "~moved to" files and parts.lst
|
|
(...) (whew!) Glad my assumption was correct. :-) (...) Huh? What do you mean by inline operation? -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 27-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "~moved to" files and parts.lst [DAT]
|
|
(...) If part 1234.dat was ~Moved to 5678.dat, when LDAO updates 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1234.dat it shouldn't just cut out the 1234 and paste in 5678. It should inline this line (skipping any comment lines, of course). This would have the (...) (26 years ago, 27-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "~moved to" files and parts.lst [DAT]
|
|
(...) Something is just not clicking in my noggin. It seems to me that all you would want to replace would be the filename. Are you saying that the mover should grab the _entire_ line: 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5678.dat from the ~Moved to file, (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "~moved to" files and parts.lst [DAT]
|
|
(...) Part #30079 is mis-positioned. It is not aligned for easy placement. I don't remember the exact numbers, maybe you have to move the piece up by -3LDU to 'click' it into a model, I don't remember. There was discussion about correcting the part, (...) (26 years ago, 28-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "~moved to" files and parts.lst
|
|
(...) Ah..... Now I see your point. That would be a valuable feature, if we moved a part slightly using the ~moved to file. And it would have no affect on a part that has not been re-positioned in the ~moved to file. While an interestion conjecture, (...) (26 years ago, 30-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | (Was: "~moved to" files)
|
|
I have not followed this thread so carefully (either) but I think if we ever move wheel- or tyre file, we should use one x~z direction, prefarably the current most commonly used. I find it quite frustration that wheels don't point the same way. Or (...) (26 years ago, 30-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
