 | | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
(...) Right. I'd rather have one file be a standard part file, and the other be a "shortcut" type file, meaning that the part name would be prepended with an underscore. I think we should *not* declare either the opaque or the transparent numbers to (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
(...) p/n (...) angle. (...) is (...) Good analysis, Steve - I agree wholeheartedly - Chris (24 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes: <snippage> (...) All along we have been using these numbers as 'part numbers', when actually they appear to be a mould number. What we are finding here is that there are 1-n mould numbers for each 'part shape'. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
(...) 1-n (...) present (...) we (...) of (...) not (...) In the main, I think they really are part numbers, considering the total number of parts there are very few exceptions, which I think can be explained by 1) some technical need for separate (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
(...) This just in: there's a light gray 4x4 dish from the Life on Mars Red Mecha (sorry, I don't have the number handy). It has a part number: 3960. I guess that goes toward supporting my note of caution: (...) Steve (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee writes: <snips> (...) Correct. The actual mould number is probably the composite of the 4/5 digit number and the X-XX number (usually first appears as 1-01). I would guess that the X-XX number has to do with the actual (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
|
(...) Another thing to keep in mind: we're seeing the results of a system changing over time. It appears that TLC has changed its part-numbering strategy at least twice over the years, with some other minor adjustments occuring along the way. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
