Future of LDD: Next Lego Digital Designer Update?

[Nachapon Lego]

Please try LDD new feature below link.

LDD trick #13 : changing FOV (field of view)

http://www.eurobrick...50#entry2444542

YouTube LDD FOV changing trick (field of view) by Nachapon S., on Flickr

Edited January 23, 2016 by bbqqq

[JGW3000]

"its only mostly dead" what is this, Princess Bride redux? In any case, looks like a low priority to LEGO, but still moving along.

I have read that at least some TLG in-house set designers use LDD as well. Perhaps if someone meets an official set designer at a LUG/LEGO convention, can chat him up about if they use LDD, updates, etc...

[The Mugbearer]

I have read that at least some TLG in-house set designers use LDD as well.

Yeah, some sort of "professional" edition with extended features.

Perhaps if someone meets an official set designer at a LUG/LEGO convention, can chat him up about if they use LDD, updates, etc...

I got a friend who works at The Lego Group. Unfortunately, he is as well-informed as I am.

[Dornbi]

TLG has responded to earlier statement in the Ambassador forum (My source for this is still Swebrick's Ambassador)

teabox, thanks a ton for the update.

Do you have a chance to ask about software issues? This is my biggest pain point right now, see this thread. I realize that there are probably not that many Mac users, but this glitch on El Capitan really makes it barely usable and my guess is that it would not be hard to fix for someone who has access to the source.

@Others, thanks for mentioning LDCad, I did not know about it. Judging from the videos I found on youtube it may be just what I need (and supports part snap, yay!). Now I only wish it would have a Mac version (yeah I know, I should buy Windows or Linux...).

The other thing I find somewhat strange is why all these SW not open source (MLCad, LDCad, for example). Look at SR 3D builder for example: it is a great piece of software but now that the author has sadly passed away I have no idea how it is going to be maintained.

[Alasdair Ryan]

The other thing I find somewhat strange is why all these SW not open source (MLCad, LDCad, for example). Look at SR 3D builder for example: it is a great piece of software but now that the author has sadly passed away I have no idea how it is going to be maintained.

It will not be getting maintained.

[legolijntje]

[...]

@Others, thanks for mentioning LDCad, I did not know about it. Judging from the videos I found on youtube it may be just what I need (and supports part snap, yay!). Now I only wish it would have a Mac version (yeah I know, I should buy Windows or Linux...).

[...]

I believe Roland (LDcad's author) would like to make a mac-version, but he doesn't have a Mac or something like that. You should ask him about the details.

[...]

The other thing I find somewhat strange is why all these SW not open source (MLCad, LDCad, for example). Look at SR 3D builder for example: it is a great piece of software but now that the author has sadly passed away I have no idea how it is going to be maintained.

Sergio (author of SR3D) his family said that they would rather not give away the source. Maybe in the future... But at the moment, it's basicly dead.

As for LDCad's open source: I remember that Roland said something about that on the LDraw forums. Can't remember exactly what, but I believe it was something along the lines of he'd rather keep it his project and he'll open it up when he loses interest. Again, don't qoute me on it

[DraikNova]

"its only mostly dead" what is this, Princess Bride redux?

It aten't dead.

[obsidianheart]

I'm going to refrain from getting too excited here. This seems a little too much like a non-committal assurance.

[jamie75]

Personally, as often as I use LDD, daily. I would love to have a access to the Lego designers LDD for a price.

Maybe, one of the Ambassadors could say something to Lego about having a free version that is rarely, if ever updated, like now. And having a pay version, that the "real" Lego designers use.

Buy a license for a year for $10 or $20.

Just a thought, Jamie

[obsidianheart]

Personally, as often as I use LDD, daily. I would love to have a access to the Lego designers LDD for a price.

Maybe, one of the Ambassadors could say something to Lego about having a free version that is rarely, if ever updated, like now. And having a pay version, that the "real" Lego designers use.

Buy a license for a year for $10 or $20.

Just a thought, Jamie

While I am sure most of us would prefer "free", I would also be well on board with this idea.

[Umbra-Manis]

For those wishing to pay for Lego's internal version. I'm quoting a Lego designer. (again)

I am working with the regular LDD version too, since LDD Pro (our internal LDD) is still in development. It helps to get an infusion of brand new elements every now and then though ... :)

[jamie75]

For those wishing to pay for Lego's internal version. I'm quoting a Lego designer. (again)

Point being, if they were making money off this idea, new parts would be more frequent. Updates would probably be once or twice a year. Ambassadors, make this happen! :)

Jamie

[DraikNova]

Personally, I would prefer if a professional LDD was a one-time buy, rather than a subscription of sorts. Either way, I'd be willing to pay for a more professional version of LDD, although I can't think of many features something like that would add. Better lighting options, the "parts lock" feature I mentioned earlier and maybe an option to import image files for use as part decorations in extended mode.

Edited January 22, 2016 by DraikNova

[Zerobricks]

I have been using LDD in all kinds of manners for several years now and I have a feeling LDD can do much more, but I think the functions are kind of locked in the normal version. Paying some money for a PRO version is no problem for me either and I think thats a good case for Lego to think about, I mean who doesnt want more profit?

[___]

Personally, I would prefer if a professional LDD was a one-time buy, rather than a subscription of sorts. Either way, I'd be willing to pay for a more professional version of LDD, although I can't think of many features something like that would add. Better lighting options, the "parts lock" feature I mentioned earlier and maybe an option to import image files for use as part decorations in extended mode.

Actually, I could think about much more options that could be added, but mainly and absolutely definitely there should be added - for such PRO version - real physics behavior (switchable on/off) + real interaction of connected parts: that is if I have something that would move in real brick when some other part is rotating it should do the same in this virtual LDD world (see I am developing everything only in LDD so it would help unbelievably!)

I have been using LDD in all kinds of manners for several years now and I have a feeling LDD can do much more, but I think the functions are kind of locked in the normal version. Paying some money for a PRO version is no problem for me either and I think thats a good case for Lego to think about, I mean who doesnt want more profit?

I agree fully on this!

Edited January 22, 2016 by bublible

[bacem]

found this on Synergy LUG on facebook

News on LDD

"Dear Ambassadors, I hope this will help clarify a bit of the confusion and misunderstanding from our end regarding LDD. TLG will remain committed to digital building going forward, in regards to LDD, this means that we will continue to support the current functionality. We will not be doing automatic updates on elements, however elements will continue to be added from time to time. Unfortunately we cannot ensure that all elements are made available. I can see that the message has spread widely in the community since Kevin’s statement and I hope that you will assist us in spreading this message as well. Thank you! "

From Tanja Friberg | LEGO

original post here

is this valid?

[kangmingjie]

Some suggestions I've gathered from this thread, having followed it from day one:

1) Wait for an update from TLG for LDD (I'm holding my breath ).

2) Use an alternative building program like any of the LDraw tools or SR3D.

3) Hack LDD and add the new pieces yourself.

Some responses I've seen to the above suggestions:

1) TLG has other digital interests in mind and LDD is no longer receiving the attention we'd like.

2) The alternative programs are not as user friendly and lack many of the features we've grown accustomed to in LDD.

3) It's against the EULA to hack LDD and would require an expensive CAD software that can read and manipulate .g format for injection molded components (they do exist by the way).

The only suggestion I have not seen is for the developers/ software engineers present on this forum to get together and start building a new builder. That's mainly due to a few things such as:

1) Programs on a scale of LDD are not built quickly.

2) Who honestly has time to dedicate to a project that large without receiving compensation?

3) How does one create a program like LDD without being told by TLG to cease and desist?

4) Will the brick geometry come from LDraw, another library or will Lego be kind enough to release LDD's part geometry (again, I'm holding my breath ) or will we need to build one from scratch?

5) Many, many other issues that will undoubtedly arise during development.

Yet if, hypothetically speaking, we were able to resolve those problems and move past the issues barring us from such a program, how much better would it be than what we have now?

I'm not a software engineer and I doubt many of us here are, but if we could get together and create something (share a repo on Github, communicate over Slack or Skype) I think it could be a fun venture during our spare time. Would anyone else be interested in at least exploring this as an option?

[Dornbi]

Wow, quite a traffic on this thread.

And it is getting some media attention, e.g.

http://brickset.com/...e/18789/rip-ldd

http://www.brothers-brick.com/2016/01/21/lego-digital-designer-officially-defunded-and-unsupported-news/

Which is actually quite good. I don't think this whole story came across as TLG intended, so at least it will get some attention within the company again.

It is clear that having a nicely usable open source alternative would be the best thing. (Sorry, not intended to downplay the existing alternatives, it must have been quite an effort to build them). LDraw provides a nice foundation. I did not have a chance to try LDCad but based on the videos it seems to be closest. I do not think it is worth starting a new one from scratch, making one of them better is the way to go.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Dornbi

[___]

Wow, quite a traffic on this thread.

And it is getting some media attention, e.g.

http://brickset.com/...e/18789/rip-ldd

http://www.brothers-...supported-news/

Which is actually quite good. I don't think this whole story came across as TLG intended, so at least it will get some attention within the company again.

It is clear that having a nicely usable open source alternative would be the best thing. (Sorry, not intended to downplay the existing alternatives, it must have been quite an effort to build them). LDraw provides a nice foundation. I did not have a chance to try LDCad but based on the videos it seems to be closest. I do not think it is worth starting a new one from scratch, making one of them better is the way to go.

Well, as for the LDCad - I did try it and it feels really very close to LDD (parts snapping for example) - if I ever was thinking about going away from LDD to LDRAW this would definitely be the only one I would choose for sure tho it is still not the same as LDD but it is far far faaaar better than any other LDRAW SW out there I have used (ehm, from the point of view of skilled LDD user, of course) tho I did stay with LDD cos I developed over time many techniques and MODs for it I could not live without anymore, probably (shared also here on EB) that actually allows me to do anything I want, the way I want to and extremely quickly yet still in super photo realistic quality renders.

Edited January 22, 2016 by bublible

[xlib]

The only suggestion I have not seen is for the developers/ software engineers present on this forum to get together and start building a new builder. That's mainly due to a few things such as:

Developing such program is indeed big effort. However, such effort can not be even started before more fundamental problems with data format are resolved. Main problem is that LDraw format is unsuitable for CAD as it lacks connectivity information and is very inconvenient from computational geometry point of view.

3) How does one create a program like LDD without being told by TLG to cease and desist?

This is easy part - don't use stuff from LDD. TLG have no software patents, so independently developed program can't be "C&D'ed".

4) Will the brick geometry come from LDraw, another library or will Lego be kind enough to release LDD's part geometry (again, I'm holding my breath ) or will we need to build one from scratch?

Let's explore all presented here options.

"LDraw" - crappy format, no connectivity or physics information, very comprehensive database

"LDD" - format undocumented, data copyrighted. Definite no-go unless TLG release data and documentation under some kind of very permissive license.

"build one from scratch" - unrealistic goal. Neither me nor _anyone_ I've met on these forums have good knowledge in computational geometry. There's no reason proposed standard will be better than LDraw.

The best chance is to use LDraw as a base and add connectivity information by "compute+manual override".

[Philo]

The best chance is to use LDraw as a base and add connectivity information by "compute+manual override".

LDCad does offer connectivity by mean of a parallel library. Requires some work, but pretty manageable. Add to this that thanks to the hierarchical structure of LDraw library, defining connectivity for key elements (stud or pin/pinhole primitives) already provide some connectivity to many parts "automagically". This

shows how to add connectivity to a part missing it.

Note that using a parallel connectivity library was also the way used by SR3D Builder, but SR3D relied more on stuff inside code, not easily upgradable :(

Edited January 26, 2016 by Philo

[xlib]

LDCad does offer connectivity by mean of a parallel library. Requires some work, but pretty manageable.

< skip>

Note that using a parallel connectivity library was also the way used by SR3D Builder, but SR3D relied more on stuff inside code, not easily upgradable :(

LDCad is close-sourced. Its library is copyrighted. Even IF you somehow understand how its library works, you can't (legally) take it. Same true for SR3D.

Add to this that thanks to the hierarchical structure of LDraw library, defining connectivity for key elements (stud or pin/pinhole primitives) already provide some connectivity to many parts "automagically". This

shows how to add connectivity to a part missing it.

Yes, _stud_ is indeed primitive. But opposite part of stud (how does it called?) is not. Think: you connect stud in the middle between 4 "walls". That's just place where stud fits. How do you automatically define this point when surrounding "walls" are not parts of some logical structure? IIRC it's hard algorithmic problem.

[SylvainLS]

But opposite part of stud (how does it called?).

Sometimes, “anti-stud.”

As “tenon” is what a stud is officialy¹ called in French, I think “mortise” should fit.

¹ Lego.com in fr-FR, catalogs…

[Philo]

Even IF you somehow understand how its library works

No problem for that! it's fully documented (http://www.melkert.net/LDCad/tech/meta) and it's actually pretty easy to extend the library.

Yes, the antistud is an issue... but again defining a new connectivity if it's missing is not difficult.

[Jason C. Hand]

Not sure which version of the "official story" to believe anymore about LDD: Either no more updates ever, or limited element updates from time to time. But anyway, earlier today I check out the Mecabricks website, and was very interested with what I saw. Call me losing faith too soon if you must, but I think it is officially time to leave LDD-Ville, as much as I dig using it as part of motion graphics projects :\