Difference between revisions of "User talk:ForceFlow"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Please forward the inconsistencies in the chart, please. Doing a cursory search over the chart, I could not find any. However, I did not use a fine-toothed comb. I would rather see a chart that had more info. If you've ever had to diagnose a broken trace on a Bally, the more info definitely helps. I've always used the schematics, but a chart would be better, provided that it is accurate.--[[User:Jimpal|Jimpal]] ([[User talk:Jimpal|talk]]) 10:02, 19 March 2016 (CDT) | Please forward the inconsistencies in the chart, please. Doing a cursory search over the chart, I could not find any. However, I did not use a fine-toothed comb. I would rather see a chart that had more info. If you've ever had to diagnose a broken trace on a Bally, the more info definitely helps. I've always used the schematics, but a chart would be better, provided that it is accurate.--[[User:Jimpal|Jimpal]] ([[User talk:Jimpal|talk]]) 10:02, 19 March 2016 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Well crap. I used the "rollback" link, thinking I was going to roll back the deletion of the old table. It apparently rolled back a lot more, going all the way back to ForceFlow's editing of the section. | ||
| + | |||
| + | So again, what did Andrew think was wrong with the table? I suspect that table was simply copied into the Wiki from Clay's old guide. -- Hibler | ||
Revision as of 13:25, 19 March 2016
So, what was ultimately wrong with the M-200 data signal chart? It looks like a lot of continuity test points were lost with the new chart.--Jimpal (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2016 (CDT)
Please forward the inconsistencies in the chart, please. Doing a cursory search over the chart, I could not find any. However, I did not use a fine-toothed comb. I would rather see a chart that had more info. If you've ever had to diagnose a broken trace on a Bally, the more info definitely helps. I've always used the schematics, but a chart would be better, provided that it is accurate.--Jimpal (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2016 (CDT)
Well crap. I used the "rollback" link, thinking I was going to roll back the deletion of the old table. It apparently rolled back a lot more, going all the way back to ForceFlow's editing of the section.
So again, what did Andrew think was wrong with the table? I suspect that table was simply copied into the Wiki from Clay's old guide. -- Hibler