 | | 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 ?
|
|
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 ?
|
|
(...) 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 ?
|
|
(...) 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 ?
|
|
(...) part (...) just (...) piece (...) no (...) piece (...) So, IMHO this makes them different parts, although at present the DAT file language does not have the capability to define textured surfaces. But, if we're making a catalog, 2507 - (...) (24 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
