Official sets in LDD - need for booking?

[Superkalle]

Hi everyone

The "Official sets in LDD" is a very popular topic. It seems we're almost getting to the situation where we're risking creating duplicates. So a question is, should we have a "booking" topic where you can post which models you have in the pipe?

About the exactness of the models. I think we're all in agreement that the models should be 100% exact replicas of the original set. But at the same time we know that some bricks don't exist in LDD. However, with LDD 4.0 I'm hoping we're going to get several of the missing bricks. Are you guys all in agreement that when get more bricks, we can go back and update our current models? If so, I think it's really, really important that we keep track of which parts are either omitted or replaced by others at the momment. What system can we then have so that we clear about that in our models? Should we list them even more carefully in our posts? Or should the model maker create groups in LDD with the parts that are subsitutes, so they can easilty can be lifted out and be replaced in the future?

[AndyC]

I'm not sure having to check two threads would necesarily be more helpful. Perhaps we could just put a placeholder message in the main thread (possibly with WIP picture) and then update that when the final model is complete?

I don't know about anyone else, I was certainly planning on fixing models when LDD 4 comes out if it is at all possible. I think as long as the posts contain enough information to highlight where the changes are it shouldn't be too difficult to do, especially with a combination of LDD Manager and the select brick by type tool. I don't necessarily think that extensive lists of part changes will make that any easier.

Grouping might help, but if the geometries of the parts are subtly different, it might not actually improve things at all and may be confusing if groups have also been used to improve the construction of the model overall. That said, I am slightly kicking myself for having not grouped the baseplate on Eldorado Fortress, although I'd guess the old molded plates are one of the least likely to show up in digital form.

[ADHO15]

I know it may not be great as recreating official sets should all be the same, but as 100% complete models are hardly ever possible, duplicates may not be too bad. They could offer different perspectives of the figs/sets in the same way that duplicate reviews do.

About the booking, I'm not so sure it's a practical idea. For example, as you may have seen, I plan to make all the Star Wars sets and present them in chronological order. Because of this, it would be nice to 'book' every Star Wars set. However, this is clearly not fair as I know I'm not the only Star Wars fan here.

The booking may work on large sets. I'm currently making the UCS Millenium Falcon, and I would be devastated if when nearing completion, I saw someone else post the model and so all my work would be for nothing.

With regards to the smaller sets that have already been posted, I plan to make them myself and post them as I see fit in the way I present it, whether they'll be indexed or not. If you want to make a model and post it here, it isn't fair that you can't just because someone else said that they're working on it.

As for updating sets when the upgrade comes along, I was planning on doing that, but I now realize I've kept no record of substituted parts and so the task of remaking every set more accurately is not very tempting to me at the moment! Maybe this suggestion would have been better made nearer the start of the thread before we'd reached about 200 sets!(I'm not blaming anyone for not doing that)

In other words, I'm happy with going along with the general consensus of the other LDD builders.

[Aanchir]

I always note every place my official models stray from the original sets. It'd be nice if everyone did, but that's up to you if you want to make it a rule.

As for "reserving" sets... I don't really see the need. Yes, some people will end up finishing ones others have started, but I wouldn't consider that a major issue. Disappointments happen; that's life. Of course, I guess it would do no harm to allow the option of "reserving" a set and having that presented on the front page of the topic. Just an extra responsibility for you in the end.

Something I think would be a lot more useful to this forum than that suggestion would be if the "Bugs and Brick Errors" topic had a list on the front page of errors that have been reported (the part in question and the nature of the error). That way it would be a lot easier to check if you're dealing with an already-reported issue or one that hadn't been mentioned, and thus whether or not you should post in the topic.

[lgorlando]

I think booking is a great idea. However, place a time limit on the booking. If you book a set you should have up to 10 days (or whatever) to deliver. Place a date on the set that is booked. If it is not posted by the due date then it will be unbooked and someone else can take it. You can place booking limits (e.g. book up to 3 sets, if you miss a certain amount of due dates then you should not be able to rebook that item, this will help those that are considering building a set but have missed out because someone booked and didn't deliver. I don't see delivery being a problem given that the community has been really generous with design contributions.

Edited July 2, 2010 by lgorlando

[Randal]

I think you can look at the index and pretty much tell who to ask if they're working on something via PM.

As for creations, I'm sort of like fish or reptiles with my creations. Once I finish them, they're pretty much on their own. I favor the Wiki approach, where if anyone sees an anomaly that warrants changing, they fix it and post it.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Randal