[KEY TOPIC] LDD feature requests

[Aanchir]

Ofcourse Ship hull and bow pieces and those pearl gold bricks too, Steering wheel (The old on the ships) Mast pieces. there are so many many pieces wich i would want in it. But if i would say them all the list would never end i afraid. :)

Captain Becker

Pearl gold (AKA Warm Gold) is actually available. It's next to Silver. It doesn't look any more shiny than regular pieces, but I assure you that's the color you're looking for.

Perhaps in 4.0 they might make it so metallic colors look more consistently metallic... as it is, the only colors I've found which reflect light differently than solid or transparent bricks are silver and (for no obvious reason) sand blue. And no, I'm not mixing it up with Sand Blue Metallic-- that color doesn't render correctly at all, and I'm hoping it might in 4.0.

[Calabar]

A "Wish" I consider very important: LDD 4 available in a portable version.

A portable version is very useful if you have many machines and you don't want to be linked to a single one.

Besides, it is very useful to show your works to friends that don't use to make use of LDD.

For me a portable version would be very very comfortable.

[prateek]

A "Wish" I consider very important: LDD 4 available in a portable version.

A portable version is very useful if you have many machines and you don't want to be linked to a single one.

Besides, it is very useful to show your works to friends that don't use to make use of LDD.

For me a portable version would be very very comfortable.

Or a phone app. Or a iPad app.

[JopieK]

Better control of the camera views would be good, I agree. For the handy, there is actually a way to exactly control the camera. Since the last camera position is saved in the LXF-file, you could theoretically edit the LXF-file, open in LDD, take screenshot, edit LXF (move camera slightly) and so on (naturally done programmatically). Here's how the camera control looks in a typical LXF-file:

 <Cameras>
   <Camera refID="0" fieldOfView="80" distance="45.073841094970703" transformation="-0.97664004564285278,0,0.21488156914710999,0.095206424593925476,0.89648967981338501,0.43271464109420776,-0.19263909757137299,0.44306463003158569,-0.87554770708084106,-3.8829848766326904,20.219125747680664,-33.864303588867188"/>
 </Cameras>

However, if anyone want's to give it a go, I say: Good Luck

Very nice tip! Just what I need these days ;) Post my results as soon as I have finished part of the project I'm working on.

[prateek]

I don't know if this has been said, but when you go to hinge something, I want a box to input the exact angle. This would be useful to make different shapes in LDD.

[rday1982]

The buyable parts selection is redonkulous. It needs expansion, desperately.

More buyable parts in more colours increases my liklehood of buying the set rather than giving up in frustration and going back to the box of physical bricks.

A parts counter, parts list, price list, price counter, and average price-per-part as a total cost divided by number of parts would help immensely.

Lower prices would increase my liklehood of buying the set, rather than saving the model and thinking "by the time I can afford this the palette will have changed".

The option to buy the set in a plain box rather than a custom designed one would be appreciated. I mean, that's got to add to the cost, the box part. I don't care about the damn box, I just want the lego set! Gimme the pieces! In a Tesco's bag! I don't care!

[Hoboman]

Well, after playing around in LDD I tried to build a few things. Then I took them apart to see what Bricks I needed.

Last night I built my first one using "real" bricks. It did not go as well as I would have liked.

So here is what I learned from this experiance:

1: LDD does not show well ranges of motion. So if you plan on having something swing, it might not show you that it will not swing the way you expected it would. It just shows if it can be connected at a particular angle.

2: LDD does not show the impact of the center of gravity. I am sure with experiance I will learn that on my own, but the model did not stand on it's own without changes.

3: I did not realize how the colors would really look together until I saw them as bricks. Again, had to make some changes.

4: LDD does not always show the "lines" between bricks as you spin the model to look at it. In this case there were a few lines that were more obvious then I expected.

5: LDD does not allow you to test how fragile a MOC will be.

Of course not all of this is LDD fault or really anything wrong per say. Just now this means I need more experiance to learn what to expect and what to look for going forward.

Just thought I would share in case someone else new is starting out.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Daniel's Dad

[Jan]

I was typing this post just before prateek replied.

Well, after playing around in LDD I tried to build a few things. Then I took them apart to see what Bricks I needed.

If you press top right button in LDD (or F7 button) you will enter build mode, a sort of automatic building instruction mode. It's far from perfect, and the building direction is most of the time not the most logical one, but at least you don't have to take things apart. And on top of that you can use Superkalle's LDD manager which produces a piece lists (almost on the fly) it's really a great tool.

1: LDD does not show well ranges of motion. So if you plan on having something swing, it might not show you that it will not swing the way you expected it would. It just shows if it can be connected at a particular angle.

2: LDD does not show the impact of the center of gravity. I am sure with experiance I will learn that on my own, but the model did not stand on it's own without changes.

3: I did not realize how the colors would really look together until I saw them as bricks. Again, had to make some changes.

I am afraid I don't know exactly what you mean on all 3 points, can you explain this with a screenshot?

- LDD does not work with gravity at all, it only works with legal connections.

- Colors can be changed before placement using the color palette above the element selection, or after placement with the color pallette and paintbucket tool at the toolbar in the lower middle of the screen.

4: LDD does not always show the "lines" between bricks as you spin the model to look at it. In this case there were a few lines that were more obvious then I expected.

In fact there should be no lines at all using the current way of displaying. This has been mentioned in some posts before, and I also think it would be better if there was an option to show or not show outlines on the bricks.

5: LDD does not allow you to test how fragile a MOC will be.

As stated before, it only works with legal connections. But it would be great if they would be able to add a function to LDD which automaticly would adress and resolve fragile pieces of your designs.

Hope this helped you a little, and LDD updates are allready anounced

Edited August 8, 2010 by Jan

[JopieK]

Well, I was also wondering, I received my Signal Post and the front is rendered with reflection etc. That would be a very desirable option for LDD to, not only being able to export but also to render. Does anyone know how to do this (apart from convering it to LDraw and then using e.g. Povray).

[pbk420]

More torso and head decorations LOTS LOTS MORE

[yellost]

what would be nice is the possibility to import custom decals like Agi's fantastic work in illustrator.

But I do agree, it isn't as important as, say, a better hinge system

But I also say Amen to a portable version. I get easily bored at work but I don't have any admin rights to install new programs, so a portable version would be fantastic.

[private_lego]

Full backwards compatibility please.

Add bricks, don't remove them. Move them to the universe part or so.

A lot of the older version LDD (from the Lego site downloaded), doesn't work as they should.

Message: older format > several bricks are removed.

All the effort for making a digital copy, so you could rebuild it later, is lost.

[private_lego]

Scrollbar of the brick selector should work in a "normal window" way.

When you click in the scrollbar in any window program, the page is scrolls up/down 1 page, so you can see the following part.

When you click in the scrollbar in LDD, it jumps to that part of the list.

This is not very practical when you have a lot of bricks displayed in the selection part.

Dragging the scrollbar is a time consuming option.

If I want to go to the end of the list, you can drag the selector to the end.

[SpiderSpaceman]

I'd really like a preferences option to keep the internet sidebar from popping up every time I open the program

[SpiderSpaceman]

Quoting myself on some suggestions I made earlier in the topic: I think they're reasonable improvements to ask for and I thought it might be ok to re-mention them, with LDD 4 showing up soon.

5. drag and drop sorting

do you want to separate animals from accessories? hair from helmets? tiles from plates? or put parts you always use for robots in a "robot parts" category? this solution lets you save several arrangements, which can be picked like one picks a palette in the filters. you can pick a model or a part to visually represent each new category in the collapse mode, or even the existing categories (what does the technic projectile have to do with any of those parts ), and drag whatever you want into each.

7. pop assemblies

there can be a keyboard shortcut to break down a selected assembly. say you just want a minifig hand, or just the bottom of a 2x2 turntable. you can break it loose and toss the rest back into the parts bin.

edit: sorry for the two in a row post. I thought it would combine with my last one

Edited August 11, 2010 by SpiderSpaceman

[Zerobricks]

An option to mirror brick assemblys. Great for bigger models with repetition.

[SilentMode]

Here's another suggestion: an function to "optimise" the pieces used in a design.

For example: if I have four 1 x 1 plates stacked on top of each other, and they are all the same colour, it would be useful to suggest replacing three of them with a 1 x 1 brick. I came across this issue when building the plan of St Horam West, where I'd used two 1 x 4 plates instead of a 2 x 4.

Not only would it potentially lower the cost of a model, but it might also encourage efficient building.

[SpiderSpaceman]

How about online collaboration?

they talk a lot about "people across the world building together on the same model" for lego universe, I'd love Love LOVE to see such a feature in LDD.

An option to mirror brick assemblys. Great for bigger models with repetition.

I think this is a big one. It would be immeasurably useful.

Edited August 11, 2010 by SpiderSpaceman

[Superkalle]

An option to mirror brick assemblys. Great for bigger models with repetition.

Are there any problems that can be foreseen with this one? I have a vague memory that this was up for discussion a long time ago.

For example, mirroring a wedge plate, would require LDD to know which the counterpart is. And also, if you want to mirror the wings of an airplane, you need to define the center-line of mirroring. And what if you do changes on one wing, should those be automatically be mirrored on the other wing. One of the strengths with LDD is that it's so ridiculously easy to use. So how would a mirror function have to look to handle all complex situation but still be easy to use?

[roamingstop]

For example, mirroring a wedge plate, would require LDD to know which the counterpart is. And also, if you want to mirror the wings of an airplane, you need to define the center-line of mirroring. And what if you do changes on one wing, should those be automatically be mirrored on the other wing. One of the strengths with LDD is that it's so ridiculously easy to use. So how would a mirror function have to look to handle all complex situation but still be easy to use?

Im not sure how the pieces are defined in the dB, and their orientation / translation matrices (I would assume they use the Homogenious type 4x4 rotational matrices) then a mirror would be valid for the mesh of an object - but not for a specific part. E.g. if you do a mirror in Autodesk the mesh of the object is correctly mirrored - but the part is new. To keep with valid bricks, the mirror function would need to know how to also turn elements through 180 degrees and realign with the original bricks.

If the part data base was updated with a list of valid 'mirror' objects it could be foreced to work - but then the mirror would only be valid in one or two specific dimensions. E.g. a mirror of a wing along the two straight edges could work (if mirror along plane X, then substitute with part Y) - but an arbitrary mirror would not.

There could also be cases where mirror along plane X results in re-using part X, but remembering to rotate it by 180 degrees (e.g. with 2x2 corner brick) AND realign the axes to the other bricks (assuming the origin of the brick mesh is not in the centre of the brick).

So short answer: Mirroring sounds easy, would be a great feature, and would give a nightmare for the programmers / implementation team.

[JopieK]

It would be nice from LEGO to have all the old hinge parts. It is quite hard to miss so many of those parts when recreating old sets in LDD. Also those neat sliding doors (was recreating set 4536) also the 9V motor cover is not found in my LDD version ;)

[Calabar]

I add best grouping functions:

- Create a father group from other groups.

- Easily move a subgroup inside groups hierarchy.

- "work on a group" function: I select a group and then all new pieces would be added to the selected group.

- Chance to sort and give names to groups.

- Correct the bug about groups deletion.

- A button to refresh groups thumbs (or automatic refresh, if it don't require too many resources).

- A "Group Bar" placeable on the bottom of the viewport, in order to easily access groups when working on the scene (this feature I think would dramatically increase groups usability).

[...] you need to define the center-line of mirroring. And what if you do changes on one wing, should those be automatically be mirrored on the other wing.

So short answer: Mirroring sounds easy, would be a great feature, and would give a nightmare for the programmers / implementation team.

I think that it is not necessary a "perfect" mirroring function.

The function should work in this way:

- work on a group of selected bricks: the function creates a duplicate group, that you can use as you want.

- offer reflection for all 3 axis (relative to the selected bricks).

- simply switch bricks position, without substitution.

- if a brick don't fit in the new position, it will be removed.

- (optional: automatically replace bricks that have a "mirror brick". Requires a table of mirror bricks)

- (optional: replace bricks, user define: the user set that a specific brick will be replaced by another. Requires an advanced interface)

- Don't mind if the reflection is not perfect: it is simply a way to quickly create a composition, after you use the function, the new group of bricks works as a manually created group.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Calabar

[Cadder]

Im not sure how the pieces are defined in the dB, and their orientation / translation matrices (I would assume they use the Homogenious type 4x4 rotational matrices) then a mirror would be valid for the mesh of an object - but not for a specific part. E.g. if you do a mirror in Autodesk the mesh of the object is correctly mirrored - but the part is new. To keep with valid bricks, the mirror function would need to know how to also turn elements through 180 degrees and realign with the original bricks.

If the part data base was updated with a list of valid 'mirror' objects it could be foreced to work - but then the mirror would only be valid in one or two specific dimensions. E.g. a mirror of a wing along the two straight edges could work (if mirror along plane X, then substitute with part Y) - but an arbitrary mirror would not.

There could also be cases where mirror along plane X results in re-using part X, but remembering to rotate it by 180 degrees (e.g. with 2x2 corner brick) AND realign the axes to the other bricks (assuming the origin of the brick mesh is not in the centre of the brick).

So short answer: Mirroring sounds easy, would be a great feature, and would give a nightmare for the programmers / implementation team.

I don't see it should be that difficult. It could at least be constrained - like doing a 'copy', but the bricks are the other way around.

Programmatically, yes, bricks elements would have to have two flags:

1. is it mirrorable? (ie, does a it look the same when mirrored? MOST do, but some don't (laser guns/scanners for instance - minifig hair, and AFAIK, the "robot" minifig arm used in the agents set ONLY came in a right-arm version). In those cases, the element would either be transposed (copied, not mirrored) or if it didn't fit into the mirrored assembly, just ignored with a message indicating so.

2. does it have a mirror counterpart? (classic example being wing pieces) if so, then the counterpart piece is used instead.

I don't see any need for making things any more complex than they need be -no need for having to specify the mirror line, just have a standard where it's mirrored in the orthogonal axis closest to the current view, and have it able to be rotated using the arrow keys before placement, just like the copy function.

Also - I think LDD would benefit from some sort of numbered layer system. Now, I'm fairly new to LDD, (but not new to CAD packages by any stretch of the imagination), and I haven't fully explored the usage of groups in this, but maybe they could be integrated somehow.

The way it would work is this:

-new parts inserted would be inserted on the logical 'layer number' that was selected at that time.

-any parts can be assigned different layers, regardless of their shape or colour

-layers can be turned on and off independantly for visibility (thus expanding the 'hide' command to something useful)

-the layers (if used in an intuitive manner by the user) can then be utilised when it's time to make the instruction guide. (I saw a couple of people mention this needed streamlining, I agree). For example, you could have a setting that mandates each layer be made an instruction step. (although, if the parts on one layer were too numerous, the guide-making routine could break these down to subassemblies)

for those who may not be familiar with CAD system definition of a layer (a-la AutoCAD, etc) it's merely a collection of parts that can be changed as a collective independently of other pieces. It doesn't necessarily have any bearing on where the pieces are physically located. (ie, layer 2 doesn't have to be physically above layer 1, etc).

The best example of using layers is to think of 'genuine' Lego instructions. The new parts introduced at each step could be considered a layer.

Or, think of the example of building a house - each course of bricks might be on a separate layer.

Or, for more complex examples, subassemblies might each be on a separate layer. A car bonnet, roof, door, etc might all be separate layers.

While on the subject of the 'hide' command, an "undo hide" command will be REALLY useful. How many times have you gone to pick a few elements to hide and clicked a brick you didn't want hidden? I have. I want to be able to "hide: click click click click.. Doh, unhide that one, click click click..."

[roamingstop]

Also - I think LDD would benefit from some sort of numbered layer system. Now, I'm fairly new to LDD, (but not new to CAD packages by any stretch of the imagination), and I haven't fully explored the usage of groups in this, but maybe they could be integrated somehow.

Yes this would be nice - and somehow similar to the super grouping functions already requested, but perhaps a little easier to implement?

[Superkalle]

I don't see it should be that difficult. It could at least be constrained - like doing a 'copy', but the bricks are the other way around.

Programmatically, yes, bricks elements would have to have two flags:

1. is it mirrorable? (ie, does a it look the same when mirrored? MOST do, but some don't (laser guns/scanners for instance - minifig hair, and AFAIK, the "robot" minifig arm used in the agents set ONLY came in a right-arm version). In those cases, the element would either be transposed (copied, not mirrored) or if it didn't fit into the mirrored assembly, just ignored with a message indicating so.

2. does it have a mirror counterpart? (classic example being wing pieces) if so, then the counterpart piece is used instead.

But what if the transposed part will not fit on the other side, sticking out in some way. Maybe nitpicking, but it's all these cases that has to be concidered before implmenting the feature.

I don't see any need for making things any more complex than they need be -no need for having to specify the mirror line, just have a standard where it's mirrored in the orthogonal axis closest to the current view, and have it able to be rotated using the arrow keys before placement, just like the copy function.

Yes, but what if you update the one side, and then want to update the other. How shall you delete/replace?

Also - I think LDD would benefit from some sort of numbered layer system. Now, I'm fairly new to LDD, (but not new to CAD packages by any stretch of the imagination), and I haven't fully explored the usage of groups in this, but maybe they could be integrated somehow.

Interesting idea for sure. And it could probably be integrated with the group feature of today.

While on the subject of the 'hide' command, an "undo hide" command will be REALLY useful. How many times have you gone to pick a few elements to hide and clicked a brick you didn't want hidden? I have. I want to be able to "hide: click click click click.. Doh, unhide that one, click click click..."

Oh yes, this is high on the wishlist for many. I've stopped using Hide because of this, since it get's me every time