 | | Re: [LDAO] Could a few people test something, please?
|
|
(...) I get: ---...--- Run-time error '5': Invalid procedure call or argument ---...--- Could this be because I don't have a vec directory? I have a P166 with 32RAM. While you're fixig bugs, could you do something about the way LDAO screws up (...) (26 years ago, 1-May-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
|
(...) One of my talents as a UI-guy is to be able to forget things like that and go into situations fresh. (Maybe I did too much LDS at Berkeley. ;-) (...) True, even with discussions in the .dat groups, there will still be the occasional need, to (...) (26 years ago, 30-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
|
(...) Yup, I think that's the right idea*. Models can be posted to the groups and links can be made from outside the groups into the data inside the groups, and that's how the true repository can be built. At first glance, that sounds kind of gross, (...) (26 years ago, 30-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: [LDAO] Could a few people test something, please?
|
|
!!Additional Notes!! 1. VECCheck will leave two DOS windows hanging out. You should be able to safely close these. 2. The final two reported items, Outdated Parts and Outdated VEC, will always be reported as true. You can't check these, sorry. Steve (...) (26 years ago, 30-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | [LDAO] Could a few people test something, please?
|
|
Hi all LDAO users! I'm working on some new stuff for LDAO (usually true), and I need to know how well it runs on other people's machines (since I'm told not everyone has a PII-450 with 128MB). I've put together small test program for everyone to run (...) (26 years ago, 30-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [Part] 3841.dat Minifig Tool Pickaxe
|
|
(...) improving (...) the (...) lines (...) me (...) of (...) One (...) Thank you, John Van and Terry for the valuable comments. It seems to me that it worths to incorporate your suggestions into the part. I going to resubmit it with the suggested (...) (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)
|
| |
| | Re: "~moved to" files and parts.lst
|
|
(...) Sure do. I just did not make the mental connection between that idea and inlining parts during an "update parts" process. As I recall, updating of parts was the primary reason not to do this. Steve's idea for inlining the part would solve that (...) (26 years ago, 30-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)
|
| |
| | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
|
(...) Yes. I'm thinking that the safest & quickest (at runtime) approach will be to embed a special header into the NNTP article stream just as it's being injected by the newsserver (similar to the way the default Followup-To field is automatically (...) (26 years ago, 30-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
