Difference between revisions of "User talk:ForceFlow"

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-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.--[[User:Jimpal|Jimpal]] ([[User talk: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.--[[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
-I copied the chart from an old revision and added it back. I intentionally created a revision that removed the old chart so that it could be restored easily. The edits after restoring an older version made that difficult.--Force
-From Hibler: Sorry about that Force. I was on a roll...  :-)
-I like the multiple connection points that the old table provided.
-Did Andrew ever indicate what he thought was wrong with the original table?
-Chris
-Here's what he said: "The pinwiki mpu-200 5101 continuity charge has problems. The data lines are wrong data line #s. Also they should be labeled DI4 (data in #4) / DO4 (data out #4)." --Force

Difference between revisions of "User talk:ForceFlow"

Latest revision as of 00:32, 3 July 2018

Navigation menu

Search