Sign in to follow this  
Superkalle

Duplicates in LDD database

Recommended Posts

There are a lot of bricks in the LDD brick database that are almost identical. I'm having this idea to see if we can convince the LDD team to remove duplicates bricks that fill no purpose. I've tried to collect all similar bricks I could find in the attached file (have I missed any?). The question is: which bricks could be considered duplicates and could be removed, and which should be kept even though they may look almost identical.

What do you guys think? Have a look at the LXF.

Here is also a first shot I made for criteria for duplicate removals:

1) Visible difference in LDD. If you can't visually tell the parts apart, one should be removed (or Level Of Detail of the brick needs to be updated)

2) Usage/feature difference. In some cases, even minute physical difference may allow different usage of the elements. In this case, both should be kept.

3) Color produced difference. In some cases, older and newer versions of a brick may have been produced in different colors. In this case it might be important for users to be able to explicitly use a particular brick (DesignID) (so the right color for that element can be ordered on BrickLink).

post-4755-132241731719.png

SimilarElements0.lxf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't some of these actual different pieces physically? I'm looking in the picture at the 1x1 Plates Modified with Clips. The newer clips have visibly thinner and rounder prongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't some of these actual different pieces physically? I'm looking in the picture at the 1x1 Plates Modified with Clips. The newer clips have visibly thinner and rounder prongs.

Yes, they are. In fact many of they are visually different. But the question is - do we need them? I'm just looking at BrickLink where I see some brick that are treated as the same brick even though they may have different DesignID's. Yet in other cases, they are treated as different. I guess I was trying to open up for a discussion if some bricks in LDD could be removed because they serve no purpose at all. The bricks in the LXF-file are just examples that I could find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they are. In fact many of they are visually different. But the question is - do we need them? I'm just looking at BrickLink where I see some brick that are treated as the same brick even though they may have different DesignID's. Yet in other cases, they are treated as different. I guess I was trying to open up for a discussion if some bricks in LDD could be removed because they serve no purpose at all. The bricks in the LXF-file are just examples that I could find.

Are they any different where LDD is concerned with attachments? In real life, when you're trying to squeeze everything into a tight space or trying an illegal connection, the strength of the model can depend entirely on which clip you decide to use. (I find the newer clips tend to crack more often in illegal connections, but they take up less space and grip more tightly in legal connections)

In LDD, obviously, those things don't matter that much, but what I'm wondering is, do the newer clips take up a smaller amount of space in LDD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are certainly some in that file where the differences are substantial enough to warrant keeping both. The large yellow A-frame pieces, for example, one has studs on the horizontal bar wheras the other doesn't but does have cross axle holes in the top instead. Lesser differences are there in some cases though, the lime green wheel arches have a hole through one version and the crows nest pieces vary again by an axle hole. I think in those cases it's probably preferable to keep both, since the pieces can be used differently and that might be important.

I'm less convinced about the need to keep pieces like the 1x1 clips, where there is little in it aside from very slight moulding differences. Although I wonder if there is really much to be gained by removing them since they have already been modelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm less convinced about the need to keep pieces like the 1x1 clips, where there is little in it aside from very slight moulding differences. Although I wonder if there is really much to be gained by removing them since they have already been modelled.

I agree that there isn't much need for both. I just mentioned that one because that's the only one I've had experience with. (other than the 1x1 cones, but I can't spot any physical differences there)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more thinking out loud that particularly responding to your point, I think that's probably one of the most common examples people encounter and I think it only really matters in 'illegal' building that LDD doesn't allow anyway.

Another one I've spotted are the 1x2 plates with bar (#4623 and #88072) where the difference is that the bar piece extends out slightly further on the one piece and there are real world cases of legal building where this can make a difference to the end result even if most of the time it doesn't matter too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one I've spotted are the 1x2 plates with bar (#4623 and #88072) where the difference is that the bar piece extends out slightly further on the one piece and there are real world cases of legal building where this can make a difference to the end result even if most of the time it doesn't matter too much.

On that note, I notice that in Superkalle's picture, he included the 1x2 and 1x4 bricks with and without bar(s), which is a significant difference, as those without bars can be slid along studs and can be placed at a half-stud offset on all types of studs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the duplicate train tracks:

Tracks 53400 and 53401 are OK, as they have a modelled underside (which 74746/74747 have not). This allows 53400/53401 - like the real stuff - to be connected to ground plates (i.e. from a railway station or road crossing). Downside: TLC should then add corresponding switch tracks, as the present 75541/75542 do not connect with 53400/53401 (they do with 747476/74747).

More to the plus on 53400/53401: they connect to the flexible track (64022)

Edited by Sjuip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that note, I notice that in Superkalle's picture, he included the 1x2 and 1x4 bricks with and without bar(s), which is a significant difference, as those without bars can be slid along studs and can be placed at a half-stud offset on all types of studs.

Yeah, those are bricks that need to be kept since the "barless" is commonly used for transparent colors. It is a bit problematic though, because a lot of builders don't see the difference between them (only looking from the top they are identical). We've seen this a lot in the RCB's. The problem in this case is that if you try to order from BL, you need to use the correct brick (DesignID) matched to the right color you are using.

And, yes the 1x2 plate with upright pin/holder is indeed two different bricks, the old one "out of system", and the new one "in system".

So in both the above cases I guess you need to keep both.

TLC should then add corresponding switch tracks, as the present 75541/75542 do not connect with 53400/53401 (they do with 747476/74747).

Good point!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm OCD enough that I'd usually want duplicates to be kept. In many cases there are minute differences in the molds. In many of the ones you posted the differences are visible even from the thumbnail-- for instance, the 2x2x8 (I think) columns are very distinctly different, and I have both versions IRL. The ones on the left are from themes like LEGO Studios and the ones on the right are from more recent themes. Same goes for the 6x3x1 windscreens. One is older and has distinctly different uses (and connection points) than the current one.

I'll give this a harder look later, but for now my vote is "keep all duplicates".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the black Technic Axle Connectors (to the right of the green "garbage can" cylinders), they differ in that one has chamfered ends and the other one has square ends. There are certain applications where the rounded, chamfered ends are needed to allow rotation around the mating ball. If STRENGTH is more important, the additional plastic "meat" of the second connector is handy to prevent cracking. Both connectors should remain in the LDD Parts Pallette.

60176.jpg93571.jpg

Similarly, the red Modified Technic Bricks (57910 and 92013, near the two wheels) should be kept for the same reasons.

57910.gif92013.jpg

The two wheels (32020 and 86652) differ in two ways -- the first one has a longer axle hub than the second one, and they have differently-shaped axle holes. The first one is stronger than the second one because it has more plastic "meat" and there are fewer sharp 90-degree corners (where cracks develop):

32020.jpg86652.jpg

The three red Technic Shock Absorbers (at the top-right corner) look the same in LDD, but they don't show the different spring rates (Soft, Hard, and Extra Hard). From top to bottom, we have the 2909c03, 2909c02, and 95292c01 Technic Shock Absorbers (all 9.5 studs long):

2909c03.jpg2909c02.jpg95292c01.jpg

Finally, to the right of the railroad tracks lie two round Technic Pin Connectors. The left one (62462) has a slot in it (which makes it easier for TLG to mold), and the other one (75535) has no slot (which makes it more desirable for Technic engine exhaust pipes, but is more expensive).

62462.jpg75535.jpg

I recommend retaining all of these parts in the LDD Parts Pallette. :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all the versions of a piece should be kept, even if the difference is aesthetic and not functional.

If the aim is to "slim" the palette, perhaps different version of a piece could be grouped in a single element of the palette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question I have: Why should any of these parts be removed? I can see some logic behind it if we're worried about kids becoming confused, but keep in mind that kids and adults alike have difficulty differentiating between certain parts like Technic pins and Technic "friction pins" on LDD. But this is just a reason kids and adults need to learn to pay attention to which parts they're using in cases like this. And I'm sure no AFOL would want one of the pins removed just so they can use the incorrect part in an incorrect color as a substitute (for instance, coloring a regular pin black to act as a friction pin).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...And I'm sure no AFOL would want one of the pins removed just so they can use the incorrect part in an incorrect color as a substitute (for instance, coloring a regular pin black to act as a friction pin).

All the more reason for Superkalle's LDD Manager to be incorporated into the upcoming LDD 5.0 ! :wink: It makes it easy to find miscolored parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, good points everyone.

But what about the two 2x8 bricks. They are 100% the same (so it seems, at least from a usage perspective) And the 1x2x3 bowed brick. And the PLATE 3x4 W/ANGLE. There are more examples like that. Generally there seems to be a wave of updated elements flowing in from TLG these days. Seems they are doing an general overhaul of all old standard bricks. Like the 1x2 - 1x4 bracket. The new one released this year has slighty rounded edges. In BrickLink they are different bricks, but at the same time there are bricks in BL that are not distinguised between. Question is: Do we users care - could the new 1x2 - 1x4 element replace the old one in the brick palette.

In my mind there is no doubt we'll see more of these almost identical duplicates in LDD in the future, since new bricks seems to be added more or less automatically (i.e. the LDD team makes no analysis if a bricks is a completely new brick or just a minor update to an existing one - they just toss them in. And sometimes the LOD is identical between the old and the new in LDD, making it impossible to distinguish between them if you don't click on it and view the DesignID. So why is this a problem you ask? I'm thinking that the brick palette risk getting cluttered with duplicates. Specially annoying when some of the "duplicate pairs" are in different categories (like with the laser sword holders).

Also I'm thinking about the potential need to update LDD Manager to make a "cross-reference". Personally I find it really annoying when you use a certain DesignID in LDD, and then LDD Managers warns you that the color is rare or non-existing. Then you look at the new updated DesignID and behold - there is the color I needed. So in LDD Manager you should get a message that "the color doesn't exist with this DesignID, but there is a very similar DesignID where it does exist." Something like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Superkalle

But what is the real problem for you?

Looking at the small number of these pieces, I don't think the issue is related to the size of the database, this thing could engrave in minimal percentage.

So the problem seems to be the organization of the palette. At the moment it don't seems to me a terrible problem, but surely a better organization of the palette could help. I suggested to group these pieces, for example 4085 (Plate 1x1 with Clip Vertical) type 1, 2 and 3 could be joined under the same icon, allowing you to choose the type inside a popup (exactly as happens in DMB mode when you select the option to group colours).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Superkalle

But what is the real problem for you?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It is pretty much what I tried to explore/discuss in my last three posts. :look:

But it's not a big problem I agree. And I'm not sure about this myself. I'm more ventilating a topic, seeing what others think. And pointing out a phenomena with the increasing number of duplicates. And the mismatch with BrickLink and color availability.

I guess it also has to with avoiding confusion for users. Like with the 2x8 brick. Is there a point in having them both in LDD? Maybe there is - I just don't see it. The same with the two 1x2 - 1x4 bracket versions. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of having them both in LDD (or in BrickLink for that matter).

PS: You are right that it has nothing to do with database size at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It is pretty much what I tried to explore/discuss in my last three posts. :look:

Oh, simply I see you pointed out the matter, so I asked myself what is the real reason you did it.

I supposed it could be related to the size of the database, the organization of the palette, or simply you think it could generate confusion.

I think that in LDD can cohabit different revision of a brick without problems. I think that TLG can provide us a great precision in this, helping us to catch the differences between almost similar bricks (more than bricklink or similar sites).

So this distinction could be an "added value", and a great precision in creating models with LDD could be a very nice feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, simply I see you pointed out the matter, so I asked myself what is the real reason you did it.

No problem. I guess I like to raise some fuzz also :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a UI problem, not a database problem.

  • Group the similar parts under the most recent version.
  • Click on such a part selects the most recent version.
  • Long press on part opens a floating panel showing all variants.
  • Tooltip or fixed panel describes important design difference of the part under the cursor.
  • Hover over desired part and release to select, outside panel to abandon.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.