pbat

Has someone tried to convince TLG to make a paid version of LDD? I'm quite willing to pay some 20 bucks if I get all the old parts and decorations. It still would be cheaper than crawling ebay for the real bricks.

LDD itself might be niche software, but it relies on commonly used open source libraries. An attacker having already crafted exploits for these widely spread libraries might use LXF files as an additional attack vector with no extra effort. I'll betcha there are already tons of exploits for those libraries, so it won't be difficult at all to adjust them for LXF files as well. I mean, LXF files are nothing but ZIP files with the suffix '.LXF'; fixes for those zlib holes exist for more than seven years. Just do google for 'zlib exploit' or 'libpng exploit' and you'll see that it is not too difficult to use it for malicious purposes at all. 'Arbitrary Code Execution' means that an attacker can do everything with your computer you are allowed to, too: Send spam on your behalf, install keyloggers and backdoors sniffing your online banking accounts, place bogus ebay offers with your account, control a botnet (with your IP address appearing in log files) and so on and so on. I do not understand why a company which is dedicated to quality like TLG does use such insecure libraries for such a long time when bugfixed versions already exist. We are not talking about a week or a month, but about more than 3/4 of a decade. How do I escalate this to TLG directly? The support center says they are crowded with christmas emails and have half of their staff on vacation, so I don't think this is an appropriate channel. Can anyone cut through the red tape and contact the right people informally?

I was afraid the answer was sort of this. But because the hinge variant already has existed, I hoped it wouldn't be too hard for TLG to reintegrate it once more. I mean, they already had this part integrated, so it can't be too much work to offer it again, since they don't have to construct completely new stuff. However, I totally agree that a part needed in only one single set more than 20 years ago (6645) won't have highest prio either. But as the title of this thread isn't "What is the most important and likely parts to come with the next LDD update", but rather "Most wanted bricks..." I decided to request it here nonetheless. Actually there are some other old parts I sorely miss, such as the sunroof with glass (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=2349, http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=2348a and http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=2348b) the appropriate roof holder 1 x 4 x 2 (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=4214) the hinge bucket (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=4626) the hinge hinge plate 1 x 6 with 2 and 3 fingers on its ends (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=4504) the hinge hinge plate 1 x 6 with 2 and 3 fingers on its sides (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=4507) the digger bucket holders (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=3597 and http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=3315) the hinge bar 8L with 3 fingers and open end stud (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=4319) the hinge bar 12L with 3 fingers and open end stud (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=2375) the pantograph shoe holder (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=2880) the boat mast 2 x 2 x 9 2/3 (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=4318) the hinge brick 2 x 24 (http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=47978) the small fence gate 1 x 3 x 2 (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=3358 and http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=3359) the utensil jack (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=4627, http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=4628 and http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=4629) the bracket 2 x 2 - 1 x 4 (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=2422) the technic rack 1 x 20 x 2/3 (http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=2428) and of course many old-style baseplates, both flat and raised (http://www.bricklink...m.asp?P=2361px1, http://www.bricklink...m.asp?P=2361px2, http://www.bricklink...em.asp?P=425p01, http://www.bricklink...em.asp?P=425p02, http://www.bricklink...m.asp?P=2359px2, http://www.bricklink...em.asp?P=309px1, http://www.bricklink...em.asp?P=309px2, http://www.bricklink...m.asp?P=4478px3, http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=6024, http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=3947b, http://www.bricklink...m.asp?P=6092px2, http://www.bricklink...m.asp?P=2552px6) None of these parts was used in sets of the recent years and almost every part was discontinued more than 10 years ago. Thus it becomes harder and harder to get any of these bricks in 'real life'. Hence it is desirable to have those old bricks as virtual LDD ones at least. May the prio be as low as it may be, hope dies last.

In version 4.1.8 the shield box 2578 was included as the hinge variant (http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=2578b). It was later changed, so that in 4.3.5 we now have the towball variant (http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=2578a). I can't remember the exact time the change was made, but it must have been sometime in 2012, either at the January or the September update. Thus older LXF files created with the hinge variant will no longer load this piece, as the 'new' 2578 won't fit with the hinge plates like 3938. It might be a bit tricky that two distinct parts share the same number (and generally part 2578 wasn't used in that much sets in either version), however in order to being able building the street sweeper 6645 I want the old hinge variant back. But don't remove the towball variant, include them both, perhaps with new and distinct part numbers like 25781 and 25782 which are according to bricklink still free to use.

Hello. I'm not quite sure if it is a bug or not, as I have no physical bricks at hand to test if it's possible in 'real life', but shouldn't the flat tiles and plates like 2412, 59489, 3069, 3794, 87580, 63864, 2431, 6636, 4162, 3068, 2460, 6881 or 10202 slide into the slot of 2653? Currently only the plate 32028 and the lamellas 4218 and 4219 seem to attach properly to that slot. Although you can workaround it by using some helper constructions with 3794 and/or 87580, all flat tiles and plates should fit into 2653, shouldn't they? Can anyone confirm this to be a bug? (Sorry, as a newbie I'm apparently not yet allowed to attach images or LXF files to make this issue more obvious, but I hope you get the point nevertheless.)