User talk:ForceFlow

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

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