Calabar

Here you are: CLICK Note: it seems that the file will survive no more than 30 days.

@vanvan Hi, thanks for your efforts, but in the LDD Official Sets topic only models created with LDD software are allowed. Besides there are some rules (you can read that in the first page of the topic) on how to add an entry to the topic (layout, images, files, etc...).

Interesting thought, I think it summarize quite well the issue. So what's the course of action? Allow anything possible? About the warning, I mean the forum's "popup", I'm quite sure there was not any post after mine when I edited but I can't rule out I miss something.

@SylvainLS There was not any post after mine when I edited, probably the forum notify a new post but not an edited one. Anyway the question at the heart of the speech is interesting. Should LDD allow illegal techniques? A switch among the options would be the best solution, but we have limited room for manoeuvre in editing LDD. Someone thought about LDD that it should "teach" legal techniques to builders not allowing legal ones, but that surely would not allow LDD to be an universal building tool. Maybe this deserve a stand alone conversation.

Did you miss my "edit"?

As far as I remember, the distance among two Technic holes is slightly different from the distance among standard pins, while the studs and the Technic holes are compatible. So attach a single stud to a Technic hole is allowed, while attach a brick with two o more studs to an array of Technic pins is not as it stress the bricks. EDIT: it seems I didn't remember correctly. Just recovered the document explaining this and other issues: CLICK. You are true about the excessive strength of the connection and the difficulty by children to detach it.

Unfortunately at the moment there is no one available to manage the topic. To say the truth, there is not a staff for the digital section able to decide and realize. About the "requirements", they are an important tool to maintain a good quality of the topic and the models inside it. That's why we wrote the guidelines for the Official Sets topics: an unmanaged cauldron where to put .io files of dubious quality would be quite unuseful and unsatisfactory for users.

@GTS Note that this topic is for models realized with LDD only. There is not a topic for IO models (but there is one for LDRAW models, and stud.io is derived from LDRAW). In order to post a new model in the LDD or LDRAW official sets topic you should carefully follow the topic's guidelines you can find in the first post of each. Also, please read my post a little above that answers a similar question.

@Cyborg_Samurai In order to post files in the LDD Official Sets topic, you have to follow the rules of that topic. Note that you have to post a file properly realized and checked, not a RAW conversion, and that file containing custom bricks have to be shared as an extra together with a file made with LDD original brickset. A better place where to place a file created with stud.io could be the LDRAW Official Sets topic, but I'm not sure that stud.io files are accepted because even if stud.io file format is based on LDRAW, it is different and not directly accessible with other software using LDRAW.

@Cyborg_Samurai Mecabricks uses its own file format, LDD do the same while stud.io is based on LDRAW format. Anyway Mecabricks should allow to export models in other file formats, if I remember correctly. Note that this topic is for LDD only.

@Cyborg_Samurai Original LDD lacks many necessary key parts for Super Mario sets. It is possible to add them, but the result would probably be not much satisfying. Maybe it is time for a new LDD Official Sets topic that allows to use new custom parts. it seems few builders are willing to add the lxf files with custom parts (as extra) together with a main file that only uses original parts.

I resume this quite old topic to ask for the present situation about creating a custom palette from a known bricklist. I think this feature in LDD is very useful for those who want to recreate an existing set, and it would be a pity to renounce to it because of the lack of a proper tool that helps to take advantage of it. As known, Superkalle's LDD Manager is discontinued for a long time and with the community updates of LDD brickset the list of available bricks is heavily changed. Is there any tool able to create the lxf/lxfml file necessary to create such palettes, maybe starting from bricklists of official sets available, or importing a custom list? If the answer is no, is there anyone that could try to approach such tool, maybe taking advantage of the work made on the custom palette and its coversion (@SylvainLS, @Stephan)? The tool itself should be quite simple to create, maybe some extra work could be necessary to add a "missing bricks" or "replaced bricks with similar ones" list, but I don't think it would require much more.

Don't tell me such a simple problem can stop you! You can use any image upload service that allows hotlinks (as LEGO related and quite stable in time, I suggest bricksafe o brickshelf), ore reduce the image in order to fit the size requisite for forum's attachments.

Here you are: click.

LEGO Art sets don't go for greater in digital LEGO (here in EB, at least), maybe because they are good sets for displaying but a bit boring to build. Anyway it should be easy to count the parts (excluding the frame), because they are square with X x Y (often X x X, a square) 1x1 plates. For this reason it is presumable that Minnie Mouse mosaic uses the same number of parts than Mickey mouse one, as they share the same frame. Looking at the frame of #31202 I can see five 8x1 tiles, two 3x1 files and two corner plates both for height and length. That means a 48x48 studs mosaic, 2304 pieces (2298 to say the truth, because 8 round plates are replaced by the Disney logo). Otherwise you can notice that the mosaic is build on nine 16x16 large bricks, each of them with 256 studs. 256 x 9 = 2304 -> 2298 with the logo.

@1 Brick At A Time It seems it is not available in the LDD Official Sets topic. Maybe someone could build it soon fulfilling your request.

@Spartan4845 I've just checked the link and it works fine. Please try again to get the lxf file from the post you linked above.

Done

I'll move your request in the proper topic, maybe you'll find some answer there.

@BrokenEye It seems a good solution

@BrokenEye Exactly. Even better more than two groups (maybe four or five), as a single group would require a very long scrolling as it contains many elements.

@BrokenEye Using the spoiler tag would surely be a better practice. Even better if you divide the the illustrations in more thematic groups, to more easily access them.

Thanks for the explanation. However I mean maintain a certain coherence inside the same system (LDD o LDRAW), not among the two systems. Besides, I thought that some of these difference could influence the workflow using LDD. For example if the rotation point is different, a brick could rotate in a different way, but if now I don't understand wrong, it is not true. Obviously a coherent system would make easier to convert LDD to LDRAW and vice-versa, but I suppose that once that existing bricks are managed, it is enough to follow the guidelines for new bricks. That means the some rule that contributors that creates custom bricks should follow are a good starting point. Did someone already written down these guidelines? @suenkachun Probably open the UnplaceableBricksDump.lxfml in developer mode is the easiest way to find the misplaced bricks. Otherwise you could try another way: - Place a single brick, easy to identify inside the lxfml, on the top-left corner of the scene - Place another brick like the previous one outside the scene, for example next to the top-right corner. - Open the lxfml file and find these two brick. Check their coordinates and write down the difference (in this case the horizontal value only). - Apply these difference to all the misplaced bricks in a copy of your LXF file. In this way all the misplaced bricks will be detached from the model and placed aside the model itself. - Fix the misplaced bricks, select them all together and re-place them inside the model. Maybe some trial and error are necessary. - PS: it could be necessary to replace the whole model before starting, in order to orientate it in the right way (in relation to the grill). I think it is easier done then said.

I mean, if every brick has its pivot in the centre, a brick that rotates around its bottom-left edge should be considered "wrong", isn't it? It would be useful to define some criteria about these kind of things. Great to hear that an automatic tool would be enough easy to do, convert old lxf to new bricksets avoiding brick removal (as much as possible) would save a lot of the existing buildings.

Just a question about bricks that "moves" with the last update(s): are the updated bricks wrong or the previous ones (including the ones officially released with LDD)? In the first case the obvious solution is to update the new bricks and fix the errors but, in the latter we should think over the idea to fix the issues once and for all, even if that could cause some issue with existing files because the alternative would be maintain an error for backward compatibility, and that don't seem a good way to proceed. I suppose that it is not possible to easy fix programmatically the issue related to shifted position of a brick on existing lxf files, because the position varies depending on how the brick is placed and oriented. Or maybe it is possible to get this information from the lxfml? In this case it should not be too complex to create a script that will fix all these issues generating a new fixed lxf file.