3084 replies to this topic

[Superkalle]

ADHO15, on 26 August 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

ERRORS:
1) Collision error between part 44375 and other parts (Book 1, p66)
2) Collision error between part 44358 and other parts (Book 2, p16)
3) Part 64644 cannot connect to 32000 (Book 2, p29)
4) Collision error between 2780 and 32140 (Book 2, p69 and p70)
5) Collision error between parts 2357 and 3063 (Book 3, p18)

A nice list of brick errors. Meesa like.
1) It will fit if you rotate the "side panels" up a bit. This should be done in any case to prevent collision in the "click" joint between 44302 and 44301.
2) Yepp, an annoying 'ol bug.
3) Good find . Haven't seen that before.
4) It will fit if you rotate the assembly with two 15L tech beams with 0.1 degrees. Then it lines up perfectly. See attached file.
5) Seems like an illegal design from TLG...but it's such a tight fit it might work with real bricks without creating tension on the other bricks.

Attached Files

•  anglefix.lxf   72.46K   2 downloads

[Megaloptus]

6575 Polar Base - Theme: Town (Subtheme: Arctic)
[BrickLink]


Interiors
Control Tower

Errors:

1)Replaced 30022 with brick solution; pieces wouldn't fit atop each other.
2)Replaced 4318 with 58827
3)Replaced 30342c01 with 30294c01
4)Missing all proper decals and stickers, except for some radar 2x2 slope pieces.

Polar Base .lxf (Updated)

Edit: Updated whole post

Edited by Megaloptus, 29 August 2012 - 03:35 AM.
Oversized image converted in text link (maximum size allowed in this topic is 512x512), uncropped image.

[Calabar]

@Megaloptus
Hi  Megaloptus and welcome in EB and in this topic.
There are some things to fix in your post to be considered regular and acceptable for indexing.

- the image is too big, the maximum size allowed here is 512x512 (I've temporarily converted it in a text link)
- the image is uncropped: you should remove blank stripes.
- it miss a list of errors, can you provide one? That would be very helpful for you too, when you will work again on the set (for example, after an update of the bricks' library)
- remember that an entry, to be considered complete, should replace missing parts with similar or brick build solutions.
- it would be better to use an external file hosting instead the attachment function of the forum to share the lxf file. The most used is brickshelf, but you can choose every alternative that allows direct linking.

You can find all the rules of this topic in the first page.

Thanks!

[marco9999]

7065 - Alien Mothership - Alien Conquest


LXF

Errors:
1) 90370 microphone non in LDD
2) 2856 - 2855 Technic Turntable top and base non in LDD
3) used cape cloth 50231 in place of 522; anyway it could not be connected as only one neck accessory is allowed
4) 95201 alien face not in LDD
5) railway track 85976's lower connections do not work - other railway parts work fine. In order to guarantee as more as possible the overall geometry of the set, plates 2x16 which shoud be connected to 85976 have been excluded and placed underneath their correct position.

30140 - Adu Walker - Alien Conquest


LXF


30141 - Jetpack - Alien Conquest


LXF

For all sets missing proper decoration.

Edited by marco9999, 22 September 2012 - 06:45 AM.

[Megaloptus]

5887 - Dino Defense HQ - Theme: Dino 2011 (Set released in 2012)
[BrickLink]

This was pretty fun to make  


Isometric view

Errors:

1) Missing all stickers and decals, except for the computers in the control tower.
        2) Missing dinosaur figures; replaced DATRex3 with 6720-1. Replaced DARaptor3 and 98166pb02 with 54125pb02
        3) Missing chain connecting control tower gate to the winch.
        4) Had to switch out the control tower gate with a smaller gate because the original one would not slide into the grooves. (Odd)
        5) Warning sign switched from a triangle to a circle to fit the different gate piece.

Dino Defense HQ .lxf

Edit: Updated pic and .lxf

Edited by Megaloptus, 29 August 2012 - 03:34 AM.

[Calabar]

Megaloptus, on 28 August 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

2) Missing dinosaur figures; replaced with the only dinosaurs available.
Notes: The bushes are just for eye-candy; they do not come with the set.

About the point "2)", can you specify how exactly you replaced the animals? You have to replace with similar ones or brick build solutions.

About the note, the sets should be as faithful as possible to original ones, so if bushes are not present in the original set, should not be added.
Anyway, you can provide modified files and images as extra text links, if you want.


PS: the "6575 Polar Base" has not the lxf anymore! Don't forget to add it again!
PPS: In the forum you can't indent text as in a txt file. At this aim you can use the "list" tag.
PPPS: I've made a short guide to create good quality screenshots. You can take a look at it and release a feedback, if you want.

[ok13]

3939 Mia's Bedroom - Friends



LXF

NOTES:

- Incorrect minifigure
- Missing decoration on tiles
- Missing basket

[ADHO15]

21014 Villa Savoye (LDD 4.3.5 - Architecture)
LXF File



ERRORS:
Missing print

10228 Haunted House (LDD 4.2 - Monster Fighters)
LXF File



ERRORS:
Replaced parts 90981 with brick-built solution, 95225 with 98725, x438 with 55630, butler headgear with 30608 and ghost shroud with 2588
Incorrect/missing prints
Collision error between parts 6064 and 43888 (Book 1, p81)

Edited by ADHO15, 20 September 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[ADHO15]

I've updated all of my Architecture sets (21000 Sears Tower, 21001 John Hancock Center, 21002 Empire State Building, 21003 Seattle Space Needle, 21004 Solomon Guggenheim Museum and 21005 Fallingwater here; 21006 The White House here; 21007 Rockefeller Center here; 21009 Farnsworth House here; 21008 Burj Khalifa and 21011 Brandenburg Gate here; and 21010 Robie House, 21100 Shinkai 6500 Submarine and 21012 Sydney Opera House here) to LDD 4.2.
I've also updated/corrected some of the set names, so please keep that in mind when updating the index.

Edited by ADHO15, 07 September 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[Calabar]

ADHO15, on 07 September 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

I've also updated/corrected some of the set names, so please keep that in mind when updating the index.

Thanks to Superkalle, probably already from the next index update will use an automatic system for names, so there should not be any problem about that (in the index, at least).  
About your updates, I suppose old sets was made in LDD 4.1. If not, remember about the other topic.  

[ADHO15]

Calabar, on 07 September 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

Thanks to Superkalle, probably already from the next index update will use an automatic system for names, so there should not be any problem about that (in the index, at least).  
About your updates, I suppose old sets was made in LDD 4.1. If not, remember about the other topic.  

Well I know some were in LDD 4.1, but I don't know about all of them. In any case, they're all updated and listed above to make it easier by having them in one place.

[marco9999]

6914 Prehistoric hunters - Creator -- Version A


LXF

6914 Prehistoric hunters - Creator -- Version B


LXF

6914 Prehistoric hunters - Creator -- Version C


LXF

Goodnight

Edited by marco9999, 08 September 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[Calabar]

ADHO15, on 07 September 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

Well I know some were in LDD 4.1, but I don't know about all of them. In any case, they're all updated and listed above to make it easier by having them in one place.

Can you verify what sets are updated from LDD3 and, if any, post that in the topic I linked above? For now, only sets updated from ldd3 requires an index update.

marco9999, on 07 September 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

6914 Prehistoric hunters - Creator

Hi, different models of the same set should be inserted as different sets.
Look here for example.  

mikul, on 11 August 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

6679 Dark Shark - Theme: Town (Subtheme: Boats)

The post is irregular again.
- You should resize the oversized image, 1.680x1.050 px is too large. Maximum size allowed here is 512x512 px, but as your model is a small set, a smaller size is more appropriate (384x... for example). I already told you about this but you replaced the old image with another oversized one.
- Renderings with poweray or other similar software are not allowed in this topic, the thumbnail have to be a screenshot made with LDD.
Anyway you can provide the rendering as an extra using a text link or making the thumbnail clickable.

[ADHO15]

Calabar, on 08 September 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Can you verify what sets are updated from LDD3 and, if any, post that in the topic I linked above? For now, only sets updated from ldd3 requires an index update.

Well I don't remember now I've updated them all. If there are any wavy lines in the index, just change them to straight dashes and they should be okay. They'll still link to the right pages.

[Calabar]

ADHO15, on 08 September 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Well I don't remember now I've updated them all. If there are any wavy lines in the index, just change them to straight dashes and they should be okay. They'll still link to the right pages.

Exactly!  
You should verify if some of the sets you updated has the tilde instead than the minus sign in the index. If you find some of that, you should report it in the proper topic.

[ADHO15]

Calabar, on 08 September 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Exactly!  
You should verify if some of the sets you updated has the tilde instead than the minus sign in the index. If you find some of that, you should report it in the proper topic.

Okay. I'll know for next time, thanks.

[ADHO15]

swc2012 Mini Slave 1 (LDD 4.3.5 - Star Wars: Episodes 4/5/6)
LXF File



ERRORS:
Incorrect/missing prints

Edited by ADHO15, 12 December 2012 - 10:17 PM.

[ADHO15]

Sorry for triple posting, but it seems everyone else has gone quiet.

The index update looks good, Calabar.    It's much easier to follow in this format, but I did notice a few problems:
- inconsistencies between listing sets as LDD4 and LDD 4.2
- keeping the theme name in square brackets even now all entries are listed by theme
- some names are old/incorrect/misspelled/ambigiuous (particularly the magnet sets, so I'll be sure to update those soon)
- some sets are listed under the wrong theme: Republic Striker Starfighter in Sports, The Swamp Creature in Modular Buildings, etc.
- Darth Maul's Sith Infiltrator from Comic-con and the above Mini Slave 1 are both the same kind of set, so should be in the same SW sub-theme (I'll start specifying which sub-theme on future updates)

I've recently updated A LOT of my Star Wars sets, so if I'd known you'd be updating I could have listed those here and in the other LDD3->LDD4 topic, but never mind.
I've noticed quite a big improvement in set quality from LDD4 to 4.2, so maybe you should list those separately. I assume that's what you've tried, but all of my Architecture sets are now in LDD4.2, but listed as 4, so I'm not sure.

Just some suggestions/things I've noticed. Thanks.

Edited by ADHO15, 15 September 2012 - 10:10 AM.

[Superkalle]

I've been working some with Calabar on the new index, so I can perhaps answer some questions (that are partly my fault)

1) The index is now using the BrickLink theme structure as a foundation. There was discussion about using Brickset, but that didn't work out technically at the moment. Besides, the BL and Brickset theme structure is about 90% the same (but the Brickset is honestly a bit better).

2) Yes, there are inconsistencies between LDD 4 and 4.2 - that's my fault though.

3) Q: Why should theme names be in square brackets?

4) Yes, you're right, some sets are in the wrong theme. We'll look into that. EDIT: Found the cause. Now, onto the solution...

5) Yes, the Mini slave 1 should be in a sub-theme. Once again, my fault.

Anyway, the index is undergoing some major re-structuring in terms of how it's handled, and it's now being auto generated, so there might be some small errors coming up. Thanks for noting

[Calabar]

ADHO15, on 15 September 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

The index update looks good, Calabar.    

You should thank mainly Superkalle, that made the software who manage the database now.

Anyway the version posted now is a preliminary version, there are some things to fix.

About the LDD4/LDD4.2 I didn't noticed it, that should be something experimented by Superkalle.
I thought to maintain all the present sets as "LDD4" and not differentiate between 4 and 4.2, but only future versions.

About the themes and set's names, almost all data are gathered by Bricklik (and I hope in the future by Brickset), so we refer to it now.
Themes need to be organized a bit better I think, but I don't know if it will be feasible soon. The software now don't allow me to do what I'd like to do, but I should be able to make some modifies.

EDIT: Oops, I missed Superkalle's answer!

[Superkalle]

Index bug fixed and updated:
- 4.2 reverted back to 4 pending future releases of the index.
- sorting error fixed
- mini slave 1 moved to correct subtheme

[ADHO15]

Calabar, on 15 September 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

You should thank mainly Superkalle, that made the software who manage the database now.

Very well, I might have known! Thank you too, Superkalle!

Superkalle, on 15 September 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

1) The index is now using the BrickLink theme structure as a foundation. There was discussion about using Brickset, but that didn't work out technically at the moment. Besides, the BL and Brickset theme structure is about 90% the same (but the Brickset is honestly a bit better).

I agree. I've been using the Brickset set names, so yours from Bricklink are bound to be a little different.

Superkalle, on 15 September 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

2) Yes, there are inconsistencies between LDD 4 and 4.2 - that's my fault though.

Calabar, on 15 September 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

About the LDD4/LDD4.2 I didn't noticed it, that should be something experimented by Superkalle.
I thought to maintain all the present sets as "LDD4" and not differentiate between 4 and 4.2, but only future versions.

Well, like I said, there can be big differences between sets made in LDD4 and sets made in LDD4.2 due to all the new parts and allowed techniques, so ideally the index would better showing the differentiation where possible.

Superkalle, on 15 September 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

3) Q: Why should theme names be in square brackets?

I'm saying that they are already in cases like Batman and Prince Of Persia where they were previously listed in the same mixed-theme paragraph. Now PoP is separated from the other Licensed themes, you don't need '[Prince of Persia]' after the name of each set.

Superkalle, on 15 September 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

4) Yes, you're right, some sets are in the wrong theme. We'll look into that. EDIT: Found the cause. Now, onto the solution...

No problem. It seemed the odd set had just shifted back into the previous theme.

Superkalle, on 15 September 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

5) Yes, the Mini slave 1 should be in a sub-theme. Once again, my fault.

I was meaning more that I cannot find the Darth Maul set in the index, but you should be consistent in how you index these two seeing as they're similar sets. Bricklink actually lists Mini Slave 1 under Episodes 4/5/6, which is better because it's not really in MINI scale and comes with a minifigure, so I suggest you move it there and add Darth Maul's Sith Infiltrator to Episode 1. Just my opinion.

Superkalle, on 15 September 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Anyway, the index is undergoing some major re-structuring in terms of how it's handled, and it's now being auto generated, so there might be some small errors coming up. Thanks for noting

You're welcome. Hopefully it came off as helpful and not picky.

[Superkalle]

ADHO15, on 15 September 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Very well, I might have known! Thank you too, Superkalle!

Thanks. It's been a team work. And legolijntjes over at the Ldraw topic has also been involved, so he is using the same solution now.

Quote

Well, like I said, there can be big differences between sets made in LDD4 and sets made in LDD4.2 due to all the new parts and allowed techniques, so ideally the index would better showing the differentiation where possible.

We've been discussing this a lot internally. Actually it's not really the LDD version that's important to track, but the brickset version. For example, LDD 4 is spanning several bricksets with sometimes several hundred bricks added between. That's why we decided it was not really enough to track only major version, and hence the move to 4.x

But the main "drawback" with tracking LDD (or brickset) version, is that it needs updating when people like you have the nerv () to update existing sets. When I and Calabar talked about this, I actually voted to drop the LDD version cause it just takes time to track it, but he persisted, and won the battle

Quote

I'm saying that they are already in cases like Batman and Prince Of Persia where they were previously listed in the same mixed-theme paragraph. Now PoP is separated from the other Licensed themes, you don't need '[Prince of Persia]' after the name of each set.

Aha, you mean it could be dropped. Good point.

Quote

I was meaning more that I cannot find the Darth Maul set in the index, but you should be consistent in how you index these two seeing as they're similar sets. Bricklink actually lists Mini Slave 1 under Episodes 4/5/6, which is better because it's not really in MINI scale and comes with a minifigure, so I suggest you move it there and add Darth Maul's Sith Infiltrator to Episode 1. Just my opinion.

The problem is that to make the index easy to maintain, it's best to avoid all types of customized categorisation. Besides, I suppose that people looking for a set in the index use the "search" function, and then the theme categorisation is actually of less importance (sorry to be a party pooper, but isn't it so?). But this is were Calabar steps in....because he decides this (and I belive you and him are on the same wave lenght).  

[Calabar]

ADHO15, on 15 September 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Well, like I said, there can be big differences between sets made in LDD4 and sets made in LDD4.2 due to all the new parts and allowed techniques, so ideally the index would better showing the differentiation where possible.

There is another issue about distinguish LDD 4.1.7 to LDD 4.2.5 sets... we have not the data! (the old index distinguish only between LDD3 and LDD4)
This means that someone should check all the sets and verify the LDD version. Any volunteer?  
So, in the meantime, I think the LDD version could remain indicative, and became more precise in the future.

[AndyC]

Calabar, on 15 September 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

There is another issue about distinguish LDD 4.1.7 to LDD 4.2.5 sets... we have not the data! (the old index distinguish only between LDD3 and LDD4)
This means that someone should check all the sets and verify the LDD version. Any volunteer?  
So, in the meantime, I think the LDD version could remain indicative, and became more precise in the future.

I think if you were really wanting to go down that route, it'd be better to take copies of LXF files and then extract brick version data programmatically. That would almost certainly be an easier approach than trying to work it out manually.

Great work on the new index though, it's amazing to think back to when this thread first started, whoever could have imagined just how far it would come. :-)