488 replies to this topic

[PerryMakes]

Calabar, on 17 August 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:

@PerryMakes
I'm not sure I've understood the problem. Could you explain with more details?

PS: remember the announcement post of Bonaparte about the maximum size allowed for images.

AndyC, on 18 August 2011 - 12:03 AM, said:

Actually there is. It's an "illegal" connection, since the peg isn't able to snap into place. That leaves the peg in a permanent state of compression, which can ultimately cause damage to both the peg and the liftarm it's passing through.

Hmmm - perhaps I'm not being clear with the problem, as it is most definitely a "legal connection."  If you look at the 3M axle, it's currently passing through 2x 1/2 liftarms and 2x normal liftarms - total length of 3.  Again - looking at the image you see that the order goes:  1/2 + 1 + 1/2 + 1.  The 3M connector peg is grouped with 2M on one side and 1 on the other.  So if you replace the axle with the connector peg using the following grouping:  (1/2 + 1 + 1/2) + 1 ... it works absolutely fine.  I've tested it with physical pieces in addition to just using common sense.

I hope this clears things up for both of you - please let me know if I'm just plain wrong :)

PS: I don't remember seeing an announcement regarding image size, but I'll certainly go back to review it and make any necessary changes.

Edited by PerryMakes, 18 August 2011 - 02:39 AM.

[AndyC]

PerryMakes, on 18 August 2011 - 12:15 AM, said:

I hope this clears things up for both of you - please let me know if I'm just plain wrong :)

Hate to break it to you, but yes you are.

If you look at a real 3M peg, there's a little 'bump' in the middle of the 2M section which holds the peg in place when it is correctly snapped into place. When used the way you're describing that 'bump' is in the middle of the liftarm, so it isn't able to snap into place correctly. This is what causes the peg to stay in compression and makes the technique considered 'illegal'.

Note that if you swapped out the liftarm and replaced it with two half-width liftarms, LDD will allow the connection. This is because there will then be an indent in the middle and the peg can correctly snap into place.

[PerryMakes]

PerryMakes, on 18 August 2011 - 12:15 AM, said:

I hope this clears things up for both of you - please let me know if I'm just plain wrong :)

AndyC, on 18 August 2011 - 12:36 AM, said:

Hate to break it to you, but yes you are.

If you look at a real 3M peg, there's a little 'bump' in the middle of the 2M section which holds the peg in place when it is correctly snapped into place. When used the way you're describing that 'bump' is in the middle of the liftarm, so it isn't able to snap into place correctly. This is what causes the peg to stay in compression and makes the technique considered 'illegal'.

Note that if you swapped out the liftarm and replaced it with two half-width liftarms, LDD will allow the connection. This is because there will then be an indent in the middle and the peg can correctly snap into place.

Interesting.  Thanks for taking the time to explain that - I'd never noticed the bump separating the two sections on that pin.  The issue came up when I was building the alternate model for 8260 - which apparently uses an "illegal connection"    So I guess in the end ... I'd think that if LEGO has official models using this building technique that they would also allow that technique to be used in LDD.  But that's just one man's opinion!  

Edited by PerryMakes, 18 August 2011 - 12:46 AM.

[Calabar]

PerryMakes, on 18 August 2011 - 12:15 AM, said:

I hope this clears things up for both of you - please let me know if I'm just plain wrong :)

Ok, understood now! Simply, the the peg in the place of the axle.

I've not tested it in real bricks, but it seems to me you are right.
Both the half liftarm than the full size one has the groove to accept the bump of the peg, it seems.

So... now I've not understood the problem hinted by AndyC.  
Can someone help me with a close image?

PS: did you try to insert the peg manually, in order to se if there are collisions even if the connection has not been detected?

EDIT: I made a try with LDD.
It seems the problem is that LDD don't accept the connection of the peg with the full size liftarm if the relative positions is not at left, at right of in the centre (i.e. it don't accepted the placement in the middle of the long ping, that should be possible instead).
In fact if you remove the full size liftarm placed betweeng the two half size liftarms, the peg fits without problems.

PerryMakes, on 18 August 2011 - 12:15 AM, said:

PS: I don't remember seeing an announcement regarding image size, but I'll certainly go back to review it and make any necessary changes.

It is the first post you can read in every section of the forum!
It is marked as "announcement", and no, it is not an idea of mine!  

[PerryMakes]

Calabar, on 18 August 2011 - 08:37 AM, said:

Can someone help me with an close image?

You can see the bump that's being talked about:

[Calabar]

Oh, ok, I understand now.
It don't appears in LDD model.
But I see that there are two different 3-long pegs, could be one of that can fit?

[DLuders]

Calabar, on 18 August 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:

But I see that there are two different 3-long pegs, could be one of that can fit?

The black 6558 "Technic, Pin Long with Friction Ridges Lengthwise" has the bump, and so does the light grey x202 "Technic, Pin Long without Friction Ridges Lengthwise":

  

[Aanchir]

PerryMakes, on 18 August 2011 - 12:45 AM, said:

Interesting.  Thanks for taking the time to explain that - I'd never noticed the bump separating the two sections on that pin.  The issue came up when I was building the alternate model for 8260 - which apparently uses an "illegal connection"    So I guess in the end ... I'd think that if LEGO has official models using this building technique that they would also allow that technique to be used in LDD.  But that's just one man's opinion!  

I know how confusing it is when an illegal connection shows up in an official set! Typically, older sets are more prone to include illegal connections than newer sets. But sometimes you will find recent sets that have illegal connections in them-- the Ultimate Collector's Series General Grievous, model, which is less than five years old, has a problem almost identical to the one you encountered.

[AndyC]

Aanchir, on 18 August 2011 - 07:47 PM, said:

the Ultimate Collector's Series General Grievous, model, which is less than five years old, has a problem almost identical to the one you encountered.

As does last years Technic flagship, the 8043 motorised excavator. I guess it's the kind of thing that can be easily overlooked when checking the model for design problems.

I wonder if TLG might eventually move over to using a version of LDD internally for verifying things like this, it would certainly be an interesting use of the software.

[Aanchir]

AndyC, on 19 August 2011 - 04:15 AM, said:

As does last years Technic flagship, the 8043 motorised excavator. I guess it's the kind of thing that can be easily overlooked when checking the model for design problems.

I wonder if TLG might eventually move over to using a version of LDD internally for verifying things like this, it would certainly be an interesting use of the software.

Alternatively, it could possibly be an instance of the connection being considered acceptable within TLG but only in certain circumstances. Keep in mind that almost all connections involve some stress; that's what holds the pieces together. Illegal connections are just when there's enough stress for the pieces to become damaged. Perhaps in the case of this piece LDD is just being stricter than TLG mandates their designers be in avoiding illegal connections.

After all, it's important to remember that LDD often takes "shortcuts" in deciding what connections are legal or illegal. This is the reason why only certain parts (mostly 1x1 parts) are allowed to make a stud-to-technic-hole connection, even though other parts can legally do so as long as only one stud is being connected in that way. This is also the reason why LDD doesn't distinguish between studs with "LEGO" written on them and studs without "LEGO" written on them-- while this makes some illegal connections possible, it lets LDD allow a lot of perfectly legal connections that would otherwise be forbidden.

[kamos]

Hello,
I'm one of the Slovakian Lego fan but I'll save this for another topic specialized for it...

I was trying add some parts behind the part#: 30601, Rear, Motor Block in LDD 4.1.8 and I think i've found a bug.

If you try put two 30601 with back together as in pic1, it's impossible but if you make a "small wall" behind it like in pic2, it's possible but you can't add block into the hole.
Geometry bug?

I hope this isn't repost because i didn't found this bug in few previous pages.

[Superkalle]

kamos, on 23 August 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

Hello,
I'm one of the Slovakian Lego fan but I'll save this for another topic specialized for it...

I was trying add some parts behind the part#: 30601, Rear, Motor Block in LDD 4.1.8 and I think i've found a bug.

If you try put two 30601 with back together as in pic1, it's impossible but if you make a "small wall" behind it like in pic2, it's possible but you can't add block into the hole.
Geometry bug?

I hope this isn't repost because i didn't found this bug in few previous pages.

Welcome to the forum kamos

I never heard of this bug, so good find. Seems to be a collision box error. I'll report it to TLG, and hopefully it will be fixed.

[roamingstudio]

Here is a strange one - maybe posted before...

Part 4083 Hanger and 44728 Angle plate merge... im pretty sure this is illegal.

Edited by roamingstudio, 24 August 2011 - 08:49 PM.

[Mikey.]

Hi, i'm new here so I hope i'm not doing anything wrong =)
but here is one connection that works IRL but not in LDD =(
 Capture.JPG   68.14K   3 downloads
the motor (58120) wont attach even though it should. the problem seems to be brick next to the base of it.
hope I explained it well enough.

[Superkalle]

Mikey., on 25 August 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

Hi, i'm new here so I hope i'm not doing anything wrong =)
but here is one connection that works IRL but not in LDD =(
Capture.JPG
the motor (58120) wont attach even though it should. the problem seems to be brick next to the base of it.
hope I explained it well enough.

Can you attach the LXF to the post, for quick download.

[AndyC]

Superkalle, on 25 August 2011 - 11:29 AM, said:

Can you attach the LXF to the post, for quick download.

I've attached a simple sample that demonstrates the issue. Having tried it with real bricks, it's a pretty close call. However I think it is putting the elements under stress (part 32069 seems to extend up beyond the start of the curved section of the motor), so I suspect it's an illegal technique.

Are there any official sets which have this particular arrangement?

Attached Files

•  mikey.lxf   6.46K   3 downloads

[Superkalle]

AndyC, on 25 August 2011 - 12:24 PM, said:

I've attached a simple sample that demonstrates the issue. Having tried it with real bricks, it's a pretty close call. However I think it is putting the elements under stress (part 32069 seems to extend up beyond the start of the curved section of the motor), so I suspect it's an illegal technique.

Are there any official sets which have this particular arrangement?

Yes, I agree, it does seem illegal.

roamingstudio, on 24 August 2011 - 08:43 PM, said:

Here is a strange one - maybe posted before...

Part 4083 Hanger and 44728 Angle plate merge... im pretty sure this is illegal.

Wow, that was a nasty one - can you upload the LXF?

[Mikey.]

I dont know, im just going for the model team Scania, I found on the web. but if there is, ill surely let you know.

[roamingstudio]

Superkalle, on 25 August 2011 - 01:05 PM, said:

Wow, that was a nasty one - can you upload the LXF?

Sorry I deleted the illegal connection; but it is easy to reproduce with the bar and angle brackets. I also discovered it happens with many other plates; the error is in the bar. I guess the bounding box for the 'hole' has been made too large.

Im also working on 6541 Cargo Harbour / boat; and the newly added raised base plates have errors on the bottom (joining bits). You can see that the 2x4 plates lock in place, but do not align properly with the front of the base plate. The same goes for adding 2x2 plates to the corners.

Edited by roamingstudio, 27 August 2011 - 01:29 PM.

[Superkalle]

roamingstudio, on 27 August 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Im also working on 6541 Cargo Harbour / boat; and the newly added raised base plates have errors on the bottom (joining bits). You can see that the 2x4 plates lock in place, but do not align properly with the front of the base plate. The same goes for adding 2x2 plates to the corners.

Yeah, the 2617 and 2642 plates seems pretty messed up. I can attach a 2x4 brick in the corners, but not a 2x4 plate.

[roamingstudio]

Here is [LXF] another suspect bar assembly. Pity it is not a real bar...

Edited by roamingstudio, 29 August 2011 - 10:12 AM.

[Toa_Of_Justice]

Toa_Of_Justice, on 27 August 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:

6125 - Sea Sprint 9 - Theme: Aquazone (Aquanauts)



LXF File

Errors:
- (2x) Part 3633 (Fence 1 x 4 x 1) cannot attach to the model as the instructions indicate, so I left the sidepods to the sides of the model.
- (2x) Part 2599 (Minifig, Footgear Flipper) cannot attach to the model as the instructions indicate, but I placed it near its correct position.

-Toa Of Justice

Edited by Toa_Of_Justice, 27 August 2011 - 10:02 PM.

[nemo]

2464 Facet brick, bottom:

AndyC, on 05 January 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

Part number 2464, Facet Brick, Bottom 3x3x2 has a couple of quirks. Firstly some of the inside 'tubes' stretch up too far

The length of the tubes has been fixed in 4.1.8, but bricks still attach at the end of where those tubes were, not in the 2357-shaped (L shaped) recess!

[nemo]

This one is particularly strange.  

Start with an empty workspace and try to place a 3069 FLAT TILE 1x2 at the edge of the studded area in all four rotations.

With one of the short sides at the edge of the studded area, the area automatically extends as though the brick overlaps! However, you can still place two 3069s end-to-end so this overlap must be microscopic.

[Superkalle]

nemo, on 31 August 2011 - 01:33 PM, said:

This one is particularly strange.  

I agree. That was weird.