Recommended Posts

On 2/15/2021 at 7:22 AM, M2m said:

I made a video

 

It works perfectly, but now how to make the new db.lif file to use it in Blueprint? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I saw this tool, but it is too complicated, or does not work, or I am noob (yeah I am really computer noob). I can't get the same results, tried many times, that's why I ask - not what tool I need, but how to use that tool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When i open tracks/rails section, the programm crashed. Also, what mean attribute 'brick version'? My brick version is 777 while you version is 2670. It is problem? If it is, how i can change it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2021 at 8:27 PM, Anton said:

When i open tracks/rails section, the programm crashed. Also, what mean attribute 'brick version'? My brick version is 777 while you version is 2670. It is problem? If it is, how i can change it?

This means you go the broken LDD Version from Legos website :(

Steps to solve:

  1. Uninstall Lego Digital Designer

  2. Delete this folder also (otherwise a reinstall will not work):
    C:\Users\<YOUR USER>\AppData\Roaming\LEGO Company\LEGO Digital Designer

Then get the good version from here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick daft question ( or 3 . . . ) for those in the know . . .

Are Mac users affected by the issues with the LDD version direct from Lego ??

If so, where could they download the good version from ??

My project is almost ready - what worked in LDD needed a few small tweaks once I got the bits from Lego - and I'm going to do a little website for it including the LXF files and software.

I'll post a link for that when it's up - where's the best place to post details of a random daft machine made with Technic bits and bobs ??

 

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Graham-S said:

Are Mac users affected by the issues with the LDD version direct from Lego ??

Nope.

AFAWK, 4.3.12 was an attempt to solve 4.3.11’s installation problems on Windows 10 (LDD comes with a “Flash Player Active X” crap that doesn’t want to install while it’s absolutely not necessary nor useful, at all), so TLG solved the installation problems but the included Bricks library is way outdated and the program can’t get on the internet to download a more recent one.  Total crap.  Unfortunately SOP (standard operating procedure) for big companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SylvainLS said:

Nope.

AFAWK, 4.3.12 was an attempt to solve 4.3.11’s installation problems on Windows 10 (LDD comes with a “Flash Player Active X” crap that doesn’t want to install while it’s absolutely not necessary nor useful, at all), so TLG solved the installation problems but the included Bricks library is way outdated and the program can’t get on the internet to download a more recent one.  Total crap.  Unfortunately SOP (standard operating procedure) for big companies.

Yes can confim the macOS version you can get from LEGO site is good (in the sense that it includes the lastest brick library Lego ever released officially), the Windows Version is as SylvainLS explains.

Caveat for the macOS version of LDD: it is 32bit software only so the latest macOS version you can use to run it is macOS Version 10.14: "Mojave". Later versions of macOS dropped 32bit software support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys.

Isn't it great how updates usually cause no end of problems for existing apps . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Guys, I need your help. Something is going crazy and I am struggling with this problem for 2 days now.

I was correcting the 3D file for 2454, and in the meantime adding 2454b (24541) and 46212. Which are 3 variants of the 1x2x5 brick. But when I place 46212 in a file and reopen the file, 46212 turned into 2454. But the *.xml file of 46212 does not contain an alias or something else that references to 2454. So I think some link is made in LDD or another file somewhere. If someone has some time to puzzle with this, it would be amazing. These parts are stopping the progress for the new update since I want to include them.

The files can be found below (2454 and 46212 are decorable, so two *.g files are included for both). Please make sure that you back-up your original 2454 *.xml and *.g files! This version from the link now includes the ridges on the inside and has updated collision data to make it hollow. 

Link to parts.

Edited by Stephan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stephan said:

Guys, I need your help. Something is going crazy and I am struggling with this problem for 2 days now.

I was correcting the 3D file for 2454, and in the meantime adding 2454b (24541) and 46212. Which are 3 variants of the 1x2x5 brick. But when I place 46212 in a file and reopen the file, 46212 turned into 2454. But the *.xml file of 46212 does not contain an alias or something else that references to 2454. So I think some link is made in LDD or another file somewhere. If someone has some time to puzzle with this, it would be amazing. These parts are stopping the progress for the new update since I want to include them.

The files can be found below (2454 and 46212 are decorable, so two *.g files are included for both). Please make sure that you back-up your original 2454 *.xml and *.g files! This version from the link now includes the ridges on the inside and has updated collision data to make it hollow. 

Link to parts.

I see there is a difference in these parts (LEGO PART 2454b Brick 1 x 2 x 5 with Hollow Studs and Bottom Stud Holder with Symmetric Ridges | Rebrickable - Build with LEGO) But does this difference make a difference build-wise ? I get 46212 can slide in reality but for the other two parts does their use differ ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, M2m said:

I get 46212 can slide in reality but for the other two parts does their use differ

Not really, I could omit 2454b though. But 46212 is used in modern sets for transparent parts.

But omitting 2454b still gives the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stephan said:

Not really, I could omit 2454b though. But 46212 is used in modern sets for transparent parts.

But omitting 2454b still gives the issue.

Are you sure you overwrote the original 2454.xml in the db folder correctly? Maybe you should delete it (make backup 1st).

I see the original has an alias for 46212 as you can see below: 

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<LEGOPrimitive versionMajor="1" versionMinor="0">
  <Annotations>
    <Annotation aliases="2454;46212"/>
    <Annotation designname="BRICK 1X2X5"/>

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have. The new parts are included in the link. I removed all aliases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It appears to be hard-coded somewhere or something like that.
Removing the 2454 file works fine for 46212, until you reopen the LDD file, then the 46212 part gets removed...

I have decided to leave it as it is for now :tongue:

Edited by Stephan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kuramapika1 said:

I downloaded the files and haven't any problem with them.

If you place the 3 types of pieces in a LDD file and reopen the file, 46212 is still there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stephan said:

If you place the 3 types of pieces in a LDD file and reopen the file, 46212 is still there?

It changed to 2454 automatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Interesting phenomenon. I can confirm that 46212 is also replaced in my LDD. 

I did several other tests like deleting 2454, 24541 and 46212 (xml and all g files) and creating a completely new part for 46212 with a wig geometry (2454 and 24541 still deleted).

After saving a new build lxf-file with the test 46212 part and reloading it in LDD says 1 brick couldn't be loaded and will be removed. In a further test I completely removed my assemblies folder (just maybe to ensure there is no interference there) and I couldn't get part 46212 working. Maybe 46212 is blacklisted somewhere in LDD ?

Update:

Just renaming 46212 to 46213 fixed the problem for me. I think its kind of a bug (or undocumented "feature"). Maybe somewhere hardcoded in LDD.exe ? I did all my tests on Windows 10 by the way. I'll look into macOS later.

Update2:

Same on macOS 46212 will replaced

Edited by M2m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought for you - would it solve the problem or really mess things up if you tried sticking a suffix on the end of the part number, say 46212-A ??

Hopefully that'd stop the LDD Find-Replace from recognising it and changing it, perhaps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is in the part 2454. Five minutes ago, I use another part (mesh) with the number 46212 and it allow me to use it. Somehow, part 2454 retains some unknown info on the .g file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Kuramapika1 said:

Somehow, part 2454 retains some unknown info on the .g file

But if you delete the *.g file and copy another file and rename it to 2454, you still get the same problem, so it's not coded in the *.g file in this case. I think it has to do something with the way LDD Regular mode uses aliases while LDD Extended does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well... I've reverse engineered LDD and I just found out that there is a bunch of hard-coded "aliases".

I've stepped through the loading of a model file with the part 46212 and I stumbled upon this

C3j6YtC.png

It translate to:

compare memory value to B484 (hexadecimal for 46212)
if the memory value is equal replace memory value with 996 (hexadecimal for 2454)
otherwise continue

There is a bunch of other comparisons. I will try to make a list of them all.

Also I might be able to create a patch for LDD to prevent this behavior. I don't have a lot of experience doing so but I know it is possible.

Edited by polymaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, polymaker said:

Also I might be able to create a patch for LDD to prevent this behavior. I don't have a lot of experience doing so but I know it is possible.

Whereas finding the list could fall under “interoperability,” I believe that’d be over the line of what is lawful.

(IANAL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.