Subject:
|
Re: part numbers screwed up?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:12:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
600 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:53:44 GMT, Patrick Sayre-Little
<wsayreli@polymail.calpoly.edu> wrote:
> This is wierd. It seems that some of the cone pieces are referenced badly. I
> ran a couple of previous updates, but they didn't fix it.
> 3939 is coming as 3951 and 3942 is 3939. 3951 comes in fine with its own
> number. Did I miss something? If not, is it on taps for fixing in the next
> update?
I took a look at the part files, and it appears (check the comment files in
the 9903 update to be 100% sure) the following moves occured:
3942 (Cone 4 x 4 x 2) was moved to 3943.
3939 (Cone 2 x 2 x 2) was moved to 3942.
3951 was moved to 3939, with a forwarding reference left in 3951.dat. So
refering to either 3939 or 3951 (or the *p68 patterned versions) should
give you a 6x3 low slope.
Since the 'old' files 3939 and 3942 were immediately reused, it wasn't
possible to include a ~Moved stub file.
Terry warned us about this.
Steve
See <http://www.ldraw.org/memorial/archive/vote9903.txt> for more details
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | part numbers screwed up?
|
| This is wierd. It seems that some of the cone pieces are referenced badly. I ran a couple of previous updates, but they didn't fix it. 3939 is coming as 3951 and 3942 is 3939. 3951 comes in fine with its own number. Did I miss something? If not, is (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
4 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
|
|
|
|
