Unofficial File parts/41668.dat
part image
File Header:
0 Constraction Foot  2 x  3 x  5 with Ball Socket
0 Name: 41668.dat
0 Author: Michael Heidemann [mikeheide]
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Part
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt

0 BFC CERTIFY CCW

0 !KEYWORDS Bionicle, Connector, Block

0 !HISTORY 2019-10-20 [MagFors] Moved peghole to subfile

Status:
2 subfiles aren't certified. (SSN)
Size: 3465 bytes
Reviewers' certifications:
(no current reviews for this file)
Required (unofficial) subfiles:
Related (unofficial) subfiles:
(none)
File reviews and updates:
At Fri Dec 26 15:22:01 2008, the file was initially submitted.
Submitted by: mikeheide
At Fri Dec 26 18:41:36 2008, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: mikeheide
Comments:
Optimized with Rectifier saves 484 bytes.

At Fri Dec 26 19:21:32 2008, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Philo
Certification: novote
Comments:
Unfortunately several lines seem now misplaced - I have probably a bug! could you send me the unprocessed file?

At Wed Mar 3 14:41:47 2010, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: arezey
Certification: novote
Comments:
What's the status with the issue Philo mentioned?

At Wed Mar 3 17:35:03 2010, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: mikeheide
Certification: novote
Comments:
Hopefully I have still the source. Never noticed Philo's comment. I'll come back later today for this.

At Wed Mar 3 18:11:26 2010, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Philo
Certification: novote
Comments:
Actually the problem was in the subpart...

At Sat Nov 3 10:00:04 2012, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: mikeheide
Certification: novote
Comments:
bump

At Sun May 19 10:15:02 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: arezey
Certification: novote
Comments:
I think the title should be "Technic Mechanical Foot ..." ala 32475.dat.

At Mon May 20 08:30:06 2013, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: mikeheide
Certification: novote
Comments:
@arezey
I think you are right here that both should have a similar name. But going back here to a specific use is not good IMHO.

At Sat Jan 4 11:20:08 2014, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: mikeheide
Certification: novote
Comments:
bump

At Thu Dec 7 21:20:00 2017, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: arezey
Certification: novote
Comments:
There's bleed-ins and missing conditional lines all over the part. Should we just tack a Needs work onto it and just push it out since it has reached 9 years of age?

At Fri Oct 18 20:05:01 2019 a Parts Tracker Admin edited the header.
At Sun Oct 20 17:35:01 2019, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: MagFors
Existing certification-votes were deleted.