Chris Dee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "~Moved to" concept is there to avoid users
> having to regenerate thier models when we learn
> new information about a part's true identifier or
> (in rare cases) we change our minds about naming
> conventions. Is the size advantage you gain by
> in-lining "~Moved to" references worth the cost of
> perpetual maintenance.
I assume the last sentence is supposed to be a question. You made an incorrect assumption on why I keep updating my models with up-to-date moved-to part references. It has nothing to do with size advantage. It has to do with the fact that I still am stuck with L3Lab while working on Datsville, even though I have great hopes for finally deleting L3Lab after more than ten years of faithful service if Roland Melkert's editor in progress is as fast as he suggests. The problem with L3Lab and moved-to parts is that it generates one warning for each part that has been "moved-to... ". I wish I hadn't deleted my moved-to.log for Datsville but kept all log posts from 1999 until now, but it just went way too many megabytes large.
I would definitely not use the phrase "rare cases" here.
So, instead of pressing 'OK' 72 times for the 72 warning the latest parts update alone would have caused, I run my little DOS utility program that updates the references in the sub-models instead.
And pretty please don't tell me to use LDView instead. It takes 63.2 seconds to render town.ldr while L3Lab takes 4.634 seconds on my PC.
> It also sounds like you are arguing for less
> frequent parts updates - and that's the first time
> I have heard that.
Now that's a truly creative interpretation.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "~Moved to" concept is there to avoid users
> having to regenerate thier models when we learn
> new information about a part's true identifier or
> (in rare cases) we change our minds about naming
> conventions. Is the size advantage you gain by
> in-lining "~Moved to" references worth the cost of
> perpetual maintenance.
I assume the last sentence is supposed to be a question. You made an incorrect assumption on why I keep updating my models with up-to-date moved-to part references. It has nothing to do with size advantage. It has to do with the fact that I still am stuck with L3Lab while working on Datsville, even though I have great hopes for finally deleting L3Lab after more than ten years of faithful service if Roland Melkert's editor in progress is as fast as he suggests. The problem with L3Lab and moved-to parts is that it generates one warning for each part that has been "moved-to... ". I wish I hadn't deleted my moved-to.log for Datsville but kept all log posts from 1999 until now, but it just went way too many megabytes large.
I would definitely not use the phrase "rare cases" here.
So, instead of pressing 'OK' 72 times for the 72 warning the latest parts update alone would have caused, I run my little DOS utility program that updates the references in the sub-models instead.
And pretty please don't tell me to use LDView instead. It takes 63.2 seconds to render town.ldr while L3Lab takes 4.634 seconds on my PC.
> It also sounds like you are arguing for less
> frequent parts updates - and that's the first time
> I have heard that.
Now that's a truly creative interpretation.