|
|
 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) A second question: *should* parts be required to be BFC-compliant? There is a certain amount of extra work required to make parts work for BFC. Without a mostly-automated cleanup tool, does it make sense to put this burden on part authors? (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| Reflecting on (my impressions of) what Steve, Mike, and Rui have been saying, it seems we have two possible directions to go. One direction, which Steve has developed, assumes we will have some files which are BFC compliant, and some which are not. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev) !
| | | | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) OK, I just stated that this isn't written as said above, maybe it would be clearer if it was, but I undestood it from the "proposed spec". [...SNIP...] (...) [Mind Drill ON 8) ] I got that, but you keep on thinking about it, without trying the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) I also have taken a rest somewhere in discussion, due to lack of time. the simpler the better. (...) Well it seems that you (Leonardo, maybe someone else) didn't understand the difference between an invert matrix and the goal of the current "0 (...) (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| Leonardo Zide <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:38E9FB24.AD5CD6....com.br... (...) The (...) in (...) winding is (...) side (...) That works for box5, but how about 1-4cyls? -John Van (25 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
