Point of making models in LDD before real?

[Praiter Yed]

Using a computer as an intermediate step seems unnecessarily awkward and clunky.

You should give LDD a try, it really isn't awkward or clunky. I also design mostly in my head, but LDD to me is like a sketch pad - it's a really quick and intuitive way of getting designs out of your head and onto paper (except the paper is a computer screen ). Plus it provides the opportunity to try out bricks you may not own.

[lightningtiger]

I use LDD to experiment with designs and prove concepts with vehicles, buildings or even small accessories to see how it looks in 3-D.

I'm a conformist! !

[Ralph_S]

You should give LDD a try, it really isn't awkward or clunky. I also design mostly in my head, but LDD to me is like a sketch pad - it's a really quick and intuitive way of getting designs out of your head and onto paper (except the paper is a computer screen ). Plus it provides the opportunity to try out bricks you may not own.

It's not so much the software as such. Perhaps it could be useful for designing details, although I can't imagine it being any quicker or easier than opening a few drawers and physically putting the bricks together. Normally things I work out in my mind work straight away when I put them into bricks and if I can't figure out how to build something beforehand and do need to resort to trial-and-error, I doubt LDD is much more useful than going for the real bricks either or going for some graph paper and a pencil. If the end product is supposed to be a physical model, I have a really hard time seeing what using LDD (or MLCad) adds. Perhaps trying out bricks I don't own is one thing, but, then again, I tend to have the stuff I need and if I don't I'll probably end up buying it anyway.

Of course, we all have our own way of doing things and what works for me might not work for you or vice versa.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Randal]

I tend to see an attitude that persists in some that goes a little something like this... "LDD? Why I wouldn't think to stoop so low. I'm a purist. If it's not real plastic I'm not going to bother. LDD is for talentless amateur hacks or children." LDD isn't perfect, but it's not MegaBlox, guys.

[vynsane]

It's not so much the software as such. Perhaps it could be useful for designing details, although I can't imagine it being any quicker or easier than opening a few drawers and physically putting the bricks together.

If you have the bricks. Personally, my collection isn't that huge, so it helps me build something virtually, then order the pieces I need to build it for real.

If the end product is supposed to be a physical model, I have a really hard time seeing what using LDD (or MLCad) adds.

Um... ask the thousands of architects and engineers out there whether they think planning something out virtually (in a CAD program) is a better way to start than to just mash some random steel girders together.

[Bojan Pavsic]

@Ralph_S

I can imagine you sticking to the real bricks. But the time gain is not in the "opening some drawers, putting some bricks together" part. It's the time wasted with sorting all these bricks back to their places or changing some colors in the creation. Switching a brick in a house is not that hard. Imagine a studless technic beam construction where the bricks are put together so that they hold in all 3 directions and then you have to change a beam for a longer one. That might take 2h or even more, requiring you to disassemble the whole thing, because the beam was in the middle of it.

LDD is not perfect, far from it. But it has saved me a lot of hours and i can put down ideas on the road, on vacation and anyplace i don't have the bricks but have my notebook with me.

The process is usually: create the idea in LDD, make it from bricks, check for structural failures, back to drawing board in LDD to "repair", back to bricks. Sometimes i leave the "back to LDD" part out and just "repair" the things in bricks and update in LDD when it's finished.

[Superkalle]

Um... ask the thousands of architects and engineers out there whether they think planning something out virtually (in a CAD program) is a better way to start than to just mash some random steel girders together.

Oh, I love that quote. Spot on

[Ralph_S]

If you have the bricks. Personally, my collection isn't that huge, so it helps me build something virtually, then order the pieces I need to build it for real.

Um... ask the thousands of architects and engineers out there whether they think planning something out virtually (in a CAD program) is a better way to start than to just mash some random steel girders together.

That analogy doesn't work, at least not for the sort of most of us do. It's an entirely different scale in more ways than one.

I build little models of cars and planes out of plastic parts that can be easily pulled apart if the idea somehow doesn't work. Not real bridges and buildings out of steel, bricks and concrete and with structural loads that need to be calculated etc. (Studless technic building may be an exception. ) Most of us also don't have customers who want to see a design before they commit money to a project.

I can work out most of the complicated bits I do in my mind or with a quick sketch and usually my ideas work straight away when I turn to building the actual model. For the ones where it doesn't, a lot of faffing about is required and I'm pretty sure I would never figure those out if I hadn't tried them with real bricks. The easy bits don't require planning beyond an estimate of what parts I'll need and how big certain things need to be.

@Ralph_S

I can imagine you sticking to the real bricks. But the time gain is not in the "opening some drawers, putting some bricks together" part. It's the time wasted with sorting all these bricks back to their places or changing some colors in the creation. Switching a brick in a house is not that hard. Imagine a studless technic beam construction where the bricks are put together so that they hold in all 3 directions and then you have to change a beam for a longer one. That might take 2h or even more, requiring you to disassemble the whole thing, because the beam was in the middle of it.

LDD is not perfect, far from it. But it has saved me a lot of hours and i can put down ideas on the road, on vacation and anyplace i don't have the bricks but have my notebook with me.

The process is usually: create the idea in LDD, make it from bricks, check for structural failures, back to drawing board in LDD to "repair", back to bricks. Sometimes i leave the "back to LDD" part out and just "repair" the things in bricks and update in LDD when it's finished.

You have a fair point with your studless technic building. That is getting closer to building, say, a real bridge and from what little Technic building I've done I know it can be a pain to change something -probably part of the reason why I don't really like it.

It's not because I look down on LDD or because I feel people who do use it are wasting their time or anything like that, but because I personally don't see the benefit for what I do. Rather than building a physical model based on a virtual model based on a model in my mind, I just go straight from the model in my mind to the physical model.

There is an entirely different element to this, and one that I haven't really seen in most of the replies in this thread. I can imagine that some of you actually enjoy the process of sitting behind your computers and fiddling around with CAD software working out how to do things. For me that is too similar to what I do for a living.

Cheers,

Ralph

[sweener]

I would use it more if it worked better with Linux. It works OK using a Windows virtual computer, but it's not quite as nice (gets slow really fast with large models).

I think it's a great way to plan certain kinds of MOCs; although the current MOC I'm doing (a microfig scale castle) I'm doing freehand, when I get back into doing some trains I'll definitely be using it. I will probably use it before then to practice doing rocky walls.

I second that! Plus imagine having LDD as part of an educational distro aimed at kids like Edubuntu or Foresight.

[vynsane]

That analogy doesn't work, at least not for the sort of most of us do. It's an entirely different scale in more ways than one.

I build little models of cars and planes out of plastic parts that can be easily pulled apart if the idea somehow doesn't work. Not real bridges and buildings out of steel, bricks and concrete and with structural loads that need to be calculated etc. Most of us also don't have customers who want to see a design before they commit money to a project.

I can work out most of the complicated bits I do in my mind or with a quick sketch and usually my ideas work straight away when I turn to building the actual model. For the ones where it doesn't, a lot of faffing about is required and I'm pretty sure I would never figure those out if I hadn't tried them with real bricks. The easy bits don't require planning beyond an estimate of what parts I'll need and how big certain things need to be.

The analogy works, if you take into account who the customer is. In my case, my stingiest customer is me. I have a limited amount of pieces. I don't want to estimate what parts I need, I want to KNOW what parts I need. In the case of my entry to the LDD Design Challenge, I owned maybe 1/4 of the pieces necessary to build. If I just estimated what I needed and ordred from BrickLink willy-nilly, I would've ended up paying a lot more and not necessarily getting everything I actually needed. Planning the design out in LDD helped me get a solid cost and materials analysis, allowing me (the customer... and my wife, the accountant) to know exactly what I was getting into. If neither of those parties signed off on the proposed cost, I would've ended up entering the LDD Only class ;)

Bottom line, LDD (especially with Universe Mode enabled) is a bottomless bin of LEGO elements that can be used as a proof-of-concept vehicle before you incur any expense what-so-ever (not including the cost of the computer, I guess). While I agree there's nothing like sifting through a pile of physical bricks, as a low-cost alternative, I'm glad it's available. Secondly, it's also a space-saver - I have a rather small house that I have to share with my wife and daughter. LDD lets me design outside my physical living space (in the virtual world) so I don't encroach into their comfort zone. Thirdly, it's portable: I can play with LEGO on the train, commuting to and from the city! I would be nervous of dropping real pieces on the floor and losing them.

[Praiter Yed]

There is an entirely different element to this, and one that I haven't really seen in most of the replies in this thread. I can imagine that some of you actually enjoy the process of sitting behind your computers and fiddling around with CAD software working out how to do things. For me that is too similar to what I do for a living.

I imagine that most people using LDD do enjoy it, why do it otherwise? And for me using LDD is almost exactly the same as working - luckily, I love my job.

Although... there does seem to be a theme running through this thread suggesting that many of us LDD users don't own too many bricks, at least not as many as you. So perhaps if we did, we would skip LDD and get building, after-all that IS the point of Lego. What still confuses me is this...

Interesting topic. In all honesty, I've not used LDD myself... ...Using a computer as an intermediate step seems unnecessarily awkward and clunky.

I still can't understand why you would make that comment without even using the software? And if memory serves me correctly, weren't you recently working away without your bricks? - In which case wouldn't LDD be the perfect solution?

[Ralph_S]

There is an entirely different element to this, and one that I haven't really seen in most of the replies in this thread. I can imagine that some of you actually enjoy the process of sitting behind your computers and fiddling around with CAD software working out how to do things. For me that is too similar to what I do for a living.

I imagine that most people using LDD do enjoy it, why do it otherwise? And for me using LDD is almost exactly the same as working - luckily, I love my job.

Although... there does seem to be a theme running through this thread suggesting that many of us LDD users don't own too many bricks, at least not as many as you. So perhaps if we did, we would skip LDD and get building, after-all that IS the point of Lego.

People do plenty of things they don't actually like all that much, simply because they dislike them less than the alternatives. Most of the arguments I've heard for LDD centre on supposed practical advantages rather than on what we as individuals like, while I think that certainly for a hobby the latter is more important. Don't get me wrong, I like my job too, but sitting behind a computer isn't nearly as relaxing as building with actual bricks.

Interesting topic. In all honesty, I've not used LDD myself.

I still can't understand why you would make that comment without even using the software? And if memory serves me correctly, weren't you recently working away without your bricks? - In which case wouldn't LDD be the perfect solution?

You seem to have missed part of that comment:

"I have been using MLCAD and LDraw very extensively in the last few weeks."

as well as

"It's not so much the software as such. "

in one of my later posts.

Instead of using real bricks, some of what I actually have been doing is using CAD software. I know there are some differences is the way how LDraw and LDD work, but in essence they do pretty much the same thing. I couldn't and still can't see myself using a CAD program as an intermediate step between thinking of a model and actually building it, even if LDD were a lot easier and friendly than LDraw/ MLCad. If I have to chose between designing things in CAD software (because my bricks are hundreds of kilometers away) and doing something else instead of building, I choose the latter. The only reason why I did use CAD in the last few weeks is because I needed instructions of several of my models, so that a friend of mine in the UK could build multiple copies of each for his aircraft carrier.

I recently used the following analogy elsewhere:

Comparing using virtual LEGO to building with real bricks is like comparing drinking non-alcoholic beer to drinking the real stuff.

I'll add that:

You can try to make the non-alcoholic beer taste better, but it still doesn't give you the same buzz.

'nuff said.

Ralph

[Praiter Yed]

'nuff said.

Ralph

Fair enough. I totally disagree with some of your opinions but wholeheartedly agree with some of the points you make. I've found it genuinely interesting to read the POV of someone who is less enthusiastic about LDD.

I would like to add that I find LDD surprisingly relaxing - although it could never come close to the tactile pleasure of running your fingers through a box of bricks. But, I would still say to you and any LDD doubters... try it, you might like it.

[JopieK]

You can try to make the non-alcoholic beer taste better, but it still doesn't give you the same buzz.

'nuff said.

Ralph

I don't agree with that analogy. Virtual building serves a different purpose. I would go more with the analogy of software or (real) building design. A good engineer always starts with a blueprint or some (e.g. UML) analysis based model. Then (s)he builds the real thing. That is why I really like those tools. I have used LDraw for years now, but since 2.0+ versions of LDD I have (for most part) switched to that. For making e.g. stop motion (or in my case a virtual environment), taking pictures in the photo tent from real LEGO is much less convenient than using LDD and/or other virtual building tools. One can also see the design in non-existing colors and one doesn't have to seek for elements time and time again (we have too much LEGO in a too small room).

[Ralph_S]

Fair enough. I totally disagree with some of your opinions but wholeheartedly agree with some of the points you make. I've found it genuinely interesting to read the POV of someone who is less enthusiastic about LDD.

I would like to add that I find LDD surprisingly relaxing - although it could never come close to the tactile pleasure of running your fingers through a box of bricks. But, I would still say to you and any LDD doubters... try it, you might like it.

Thanks for being understanding of a different point of view. It's obvious we all look at this from our personal perspective. I can understand that some people find it useful for what they do, but it seems hard to understand for others why I don't. We do different things, like different things and this may mean that different tools are appropriate for what we do.

Right now, LDD would have to be lightyears ahead of LDRaw/MLCad in user-friendliness before I might seriously consider using it as a design tool in addition or as a replacement for making a little sketch. But who knows, if I am away from my bricks too long, I might feel like having a non-alcoholic beer

I don't agree with that analogy. Virtual building serves a different purpose. I would go more with the analogy of software or (real) building design. A good engineer always starts with a blueprint or some (e.g. UML) analysis based model. Then (s)he builds the real thing. That is why I really like those tools. I have used LDraw for years now, but since 2.0+ versions of LDD I have (for most part) switched to that. For making e.g. stop motion (or in my case a virtual environment), taking pictures in the photo tent from real LEGO is much less convenient than using LDD and/or other virtual building tools. One can also see the design in non-existing colors and one doesn't have to seek for elements time and time again (we have too much LEGO in a too small room).

I wonder how much of this thread you have read before pitching in, because with the exception of stop-motion animation, everything you mention has already been covered, including the engineer using CAD.

Cheers,

Ralph

[JopieK]

Sorry Ralph (and others), I was not paying attention indeed.

[Ralph_S]

Sorry Ralph (and others), I was not paying attention indeed.

No problem. The issues you raised are obviously valid, but going over them again seemed a bit pointless.

Using it for backgrounds for stop-motion video is an application I never considered, but it makes sense. It's easier to move a model on the computer over a small and properly defined distance than it is to do the same with a physical model. No doubt about it.

This whole thread makes me wonder how different people go about designing and building a model. Perhaps I'll pick one of my model that is more-or-less typical and write a post about the planning process for it someday. Might be fun.

Come to think of it, that's pretty much what I did a while ago on my blog.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Superkalle]

This whole thread makes me wonder how different people go about designing and building a model. Perhaps I'll pick one of my model that is more-or-less typical and write a post about the planning process for it someday. Might be fun.

Come to think of it, that's pretty much what I did a while ago on my blog.

That's an excellent blog article. Great read. I actually do the same (with the superimposed images over "Lego" dimension paper). I whish there was such a function in any of the digital CAD tools, that you could import and overlay images in three orthogonal views.

Regarding how people design their models, there are actually two articles in the pipeline. The first one was published here on the LDD forum a few days ago, in which Bojan explains his design thinking for the all LDD Circus Arena. Next week Lgorlando will publish one about how he designed his Astoria Hotel (that was frontpaged here at EB a few days ago). It's going to be intresting to see since he used LDD as support for building with physical bricks.

Personally, I'm very much in favor of that usage, i.e. using digital tools in symbiosis with physical bricks. I use LDD to ouline ideas and create preliminary MOCs. Then I order the bricks and build with the real stuff. I finalize with updating the LDD model so it matches the physcial model. This way I can tear down the MOC and rebuild it at any time later.

[Aanchir]

There's various reasons I use LDD. One of those is the availability of all parts whether they exist or not. It's great if I intend to design fan-made "sets" for a theme that ended years ago, like the Avatar: The Last Airbender theme. This tool helps at producing the illusion that you have the LEGO group's limitless resources at your disposal (although, admittedly, a real set would be working within the constraints of a budget as far as parts in new colors are concerned).

Also, while I'm not much for designing something on LDD before building it in real life (it's just too hard to keep track of which parts I have or can afford and which I don't or can't), it's fantastic for building a MOC after building it in real life. That way, you can scrap the real-life MOC for parts but still maintain an exact record of what parts you used and how they were put together. It also allows you to verify that a MOC uses only legal connections, although admittedly not all legal connections are recognized by LDD.

When I want to build something on LDD ''before'' building it in real life, I almost invariably stick to the DesignByMe palette. That's what I use for most of my Blacktron or Atlantis MOCs on LDD. It's always an exciting challenge to work with constraints, and since all the DesignByMe parts are available via Pick-A-Brick (or, for that matter, just purchasing the completed MOC), you know that you can easily obtain the parts (even if DBM and PaB are too expensive for you, the availability of the parts from those and other sources means the Bricklink price shouldn't be too expensive).

I also use LDD when I attempt to build scale models of cars. I don't do too much of that (or at least don't finish much-- it's hard work!), but when I do it's nice to be able to quickly compare the car's exterior and interior dimensions to any imaginable reference point, be it a minifig, a road plate, or an existing LEGO set. Doing such in real life would require having a lot of pieces out at one time, which leads to an even bigger mess than the one that's almost always on my basement floor anyway.

And of course, LDD is what I rely on almost exclusively when I'm at college. I still buy sets occasionally for the putting-pieces-together sensation, but LDD is the best substitute for my full collection I can imagine.

Overall, LEGO Digital Designer is a tool I really enjoy using. It's not the same as building in actual bricks (and if it were then LEGO would have to charge money for it or people would just stop building actual sets), but it's a real convenience for anytime that building with real bricks just isn't practical, whatever the reason.

[brickmack]

For me, it is easier to make MOCs with real bricks than LDD. I just don't like building on the computer, plus when I try to build it for real, I don't like looking at instructions on the computer screen.

[fred67]

Like some other mentioned, I have fewer parts than I have ideas. LDD allows you to build and see if it will look decent. The alternative is spending money to order pieces from PAB or BL and then discovering your great idea might not have been so great.

If I have the pieces, even in the wrong colors, I'll build it by hand and use my imagination, then order pieces I may not have. But I'm planning on using LDD a lot more. I'll still do MOCs and MODs without it.

The other thing is that, while I'm currently laptopless, I'm planning on getting a netbook or cheaper laptop as I take my kids to their various after school activities and then often burn at least an hour waiting (I live 20 to 30 minutes from many of these activities, so it makes no sense for me to come home for an hour long class), so sometimes I have ideas burning in my head and I'll have a laptop (idiot me gave my last one to my wife). I also use it during slow times at work.

[Cecilie]

Being in such an early stage of my AFOLhood, I still don't have a large brick collection. I don't either have a lot of experience making MOCs, so I find LDD very valuable, in that I can attempt to work out ideas to see if I'm able to realize them. Even though I really hate LDD for not working in my preferred OS (linux), I still find it useful enough to boot my old work-laptop in windoze when I want to plan a new MOC or test some ideas. So far I have restrained myself to the DBM palette, as I can then choose to order the bricks when I'm done designing without having to worry about scarcity of the bricks I've used. Though I have found that once I build the model with actual bricks, I feel the need to change some things because I see things that I just didn't notice in LDD (it could be an unsturdy construction, weird color-use, or something looking too big/too small/out of place once it exits the virtual world). So I often end up placing a lot of bricklink orders for rare parts anyway I'm also utterly useless at drawing free-hand, so sketching things on paper is just out of the question... And even when my brick collection holds enough bricks to build any MOC I want (I can dream, can't I? ), I'll probably still use LDD for testing ideas and concepts, and planning large MOCs. Maybe just because I really hate taking bricks apart when I want to change something, and in LDD I can just swap them out However, I still like fiddling with bricks at a small scale to see what I make. But for larger things, LDD is invaluable in the planning for me. But it will never be a real MOC unless I build it with real bricks!

[XimenaPaulina]

I'm gonna go against the tide and say that I'm not really into LDD. Don't get me wrong, LDD seems to be a very useful building tool for most people, but not just for me. I'm more of the old-school builder who's more comfortable creating MOCs using real bricks instead of a computer program. Nothing beats the experience of actually putting bricks together, having a hard time removing them physically when you got it wrong, taking forever to look for a piece amongst a thousand parts - all of these just naturally feel right compared to mere clicking of the mouse or just typing CTRL+Z. With regards to planning, I would rather use free-hand designing than LDD. And the most important thing of all, real-brick building gives you a final concrete product at the end of day, whilst LDD building will just give you a lifeless photo file which you cannot enjoy until you resort to building it in real bricks.