setMarkerSize – Talk
(Comment: Use better comments if available) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:Do we need to copy their structure even if there is a better one??? --[[User:WGL.Q|.kju]] 18:09, 29 March 2009 (CEST) | :Do we need to copy their structure even if there is a better one??? --[[User:WGL.Q|.kju]] 18:09, 29 March 2009 (CEST) | ||
You are joking I hope, whether they are called a-axis/b-axis or x-axis/y-axis makes no discernable difference to the fact that there are two seperate axis. | |||
In some conventions 2D drawings are referred to as having an a dimension and a b dimension. | |||
Presumably this is the convention BI was following with their original description. | |||
I reverted to their description rather than have people confused by two seperately named axis definitions as reported by Master85. As most people were already familiar with the original description this seemed to be the logical course of action. | |||
[[User:Planck|Planck]] 00:24, 30 March 2009 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 23:24, 29 March 2009
Description isn't consistent now. x/y-axis or a/b-axis? --Master85 18:07, 28 March 2009 (CET)
As the description is original from Bohemia Interactive, I have re-instated everything to a-axis, b-axis. Planck 17:32, 29 March 2009 (CEST)
- Do we need to copy their structure even if there is a better one??? --.kju 18:09, 29 March 2009 (CEST)
You are joking I hope, whether they are called a-axis/b-axis or x-axis/y-axis makes no discernable difference to the fact that there are two seperate axis. In some conventions 2D drawings are referred to as having an a dimension and a b dimension. Presumably this is the convention BI was following with their original description.
I reverted to their description rather than have people confused by two seperately named axis definitions as reported by Master85. As most people were already familiar with the original description this seemed to be the logical course of action.
Planck 00:24, 30 March 2009 (CEST)