 | | Re: DAT format question —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | (...) Why not? I've done this when a part didn't exist (I used a box.dat for the center of the 1x2x2 shock absorber) (...) Part developers often use different colors to make sure shapes are matching up correctly. Also, atterned parts and some other (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: DAT format question —Gary Williams
|
| | | | Bram Lambrecht wrote in message <19990921.200045.509...no.com>... (...) My experience has been that as flexibility increases, complexity increases. I'm usually quite anal about coding objects to always behave in a very structured, predictable (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: DAT format question —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | Gary Williams: (...) [...] (...) Then give the user a _choice_ of interface. (...) I would limit command types 2-5 to the "extended interface". (...) The selected object would of cause (imo) always be the level referred directly to by the root level (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: DAT format question —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Complexity also increases as over-specification increases. (...) Yes, polygons and lines should be allowed. Maybe that should be on the advanced interface, but it should be allowed. (...) Yes. (...) Exactly. And if you right-click an object, (...) (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: DAT format question —Gary Williams
|
| | | | Steve Bliss wrote in message <37e9033a.13891366@l...et.com>... (...) Yup. The simplified one I made last night is here: (URL) over-complicated one isn't on the server anymore. -Gary (25 years ago, 22-Sep-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
