Superkalle

LDD Moderator
  • Content count

    6049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Superkalle

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sweden

Extra

  • Country
    Sweden
  • Special Tags 1
    http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/style_images/tags/LDD_builder_yellow.gif
  • Country flag
    http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/style_images/flags/swedenflag.gif

Recent Profile Visitors

4082 profile views
  1. Moving to the Train Tech subforum (where I think/hope it fits better)
  2. Touché! (as far as I understand at least). On a general note. You can use the "turn off collision volumes" feature also when you encounter models that have parts removed when opening the file. When LDD removes bricks du to collision errors, it creates a file called "UnplaceableBricksDump.lxfml" which is placed in the "C:\Users\]UserName]\AppData\Roaming\LEGO Company" folder. You can now open that file (first start LDD and turn off collision volumes) and you will see the problematic bricks in red. (or rather...you will see the bricks that were removed in red...it may be those bricks that are the problematic ones, but it may also be the neighboring ones). With the help of the "view collision volumes" you should be able to figure out where the problem is. Naturally, during normal building this should never happen, because collision volumes will prevent you from position bricks incorrectly in the first place, so the feature is mostly useful when opening old models where bricks are suddenly are removed. It could then be that collision volumes have been adjusted and you need to take care of those problems.
  3. No problem to discuss this as far as I'm concerned. The information has been available on-line quite some time and DevMode doesn't violate the EULA as far as I know (as opposed to reverse engineering the LIF or program code).
  4. For what it's worth, I've reported the collision error on 6942 to the LDD Team. However, I don't know if/when it will be fixed.
  5. The latest issue of Hispabrick is now hot of the presses. This issue includes the last of the interviews from the LEGO Fan Media Days and includes updates and exclusive information on LEGO Bionicle and LEGO House. There is also a WeDo tutorial, the celebration of 40 years of LEGO Technic and an update of the HispaBrick Magazine Event 2016. And much more. Download your copy here Discuss here
  6. @Toltomeja has created a software that can mirror models in LDD. It doesn't yet support every possible brick type, but it's a great start. Read more and download here: https://github.com/mackoo13/LDDReflector
  7. @njsokalski Please note that the topic you posted in was over 2 years old. A friendly tip is that normally in forums you don't bump an old topic if it's older then, say 6 months, unless you have something very important to add to the topics itself.
  8. Dragonator has recently finished building the 10255 Assembly Square and has written up a lengthy review for us to indulge in. The set commemorates the 10th anniversary for the Modular sets. Be sure to check it all out in our Town forum by clicking here.
  9. I split this into a new topic since it didn't relate to the LDD 4.3.10 release.
  10. Let's see how it unfolds
  11. What is this supposed to mean?
  12. In the end, it's like dr_spock said: We all have a choice, and if we don't like the terms, we don't have to use the service. We've talked a lot about terms on other sites like Flickr, MOCPages etc. But I guess the case we're talking about is different to when sharing a picture of a MOC or so, because with a digital 3D model you have the complete structure of the model, not only a picture and so the "value" of the file is much higher. I'd like to compare sharing of digital LEGO models more to sites like Turbosquid, Sketchup's 3DWarehouse or even Shapeways, then to Flickr and MOCPages. Anyway, following up on 62Bricks last post: I'm wondering, what happens if someone takes an official LEGO set and uploads it to the public gallery. Is the design not originally the property of TLG? Or if you upload someone else's MOC with small adjustments (we've seen it happen in the past). What is it really that a user gives BL a licence for? Is it the LEGO-model itself (the design), or is the work that went into re-creating the digital model? Furthermore, if you upload a model to the public gallery, are you also at the same time giving BrickLink a future right to commercialize those models, for example using them in contests, or using them to enhance other parts of the site (like connecting official set models to the BL set database)? What does the "license" given to BrickLink really cover?
  13. I stand corrected. However, to me this more raises the question why MOCPages would need such a wide statement as "perpetual, irrevocable and sub-licensable". It feels like they have more or less copy-pasted standard statements. Brickshelf and Brothers-brick seems to be more "down-to-earth" terms that are more aligned to the LEGO fan target audience? (best to end with a question mark this time )
  14. Yeah, there seems to be a difference between BL and the other sites mentioned. BrickLink requests (for the public gallery etc): a) an irrevocable, perpetual license (i.e. everlasting), b) sub-licensable As far as I can tell, the other sites (MOCPages, Brother-Brick etc) does not mention any these (rather important) details. The "perpetual" is not even included in the similar BL MOC Terms of Service (but the sub-licensable part is)
  15. If possible, please share the LXF (or portions of it that contain the problematic area). It makes it easier for us here in the forum to help you look into the problem.