Calabar

It is 187 kB for me, a normal size for a PNG image. It seems that a piece is missing: the plate 3794 under the Airtanks! Look at this image (it is a bit large ).

Reading what you wrote, I realized that everyone have a different idea of what I mean with "old style" and "new style". In this topic I wanted to focus around the shape of the plastic. The size and the articulated joints was not a matter of this comparison: for example the new cow has the same joints as the old horse, but I hope everyone can notice that the cow have a different "style" from the horse. Printings on the animals are available in old ones (for example the horses) as in new ones. Ok, the new one have often more and more detailed printings, but that's not the point. I try to explain with an example, using minifigs. I'm not asking you if you prefer the classic minifig face instead than present more detailed feces (for example this), but if you like that certain minifigs have a head with a special shape, such as C3-PO one, or you prefer a version using the classic brick 3626b?. (Obviously the answer about creatures could be different from that you'd give for C3-PO )

Superkalle didn't say that these parts cannot be included, but that TLG don't want to include that. By now it should be clear: TLG want that LDD would be an instrument to design with LEGO using legal techniques and bricks in their final and complete form. That means that TLG simply don't want to stimulate the use of that "weirdness" often used by MOCers. About adding bricks to the LDD database, it has been discussed already. TLG want to check and approve the pieces provided with the software, so I think it will be never implemented an import function that allows to add bricks geometries to the .lif database. Besides there is another problems: now LDD is a "all in one" software that allow to open all files created with it. With the use of external bricks, that will not be possible. LDD is meant to be a simple software, easy usable by kids, so that isn't a desirable feature. I can understand your point of view: I'm one of those that would be very happy to have in LDD a new mode allowing to use extra bricks and illegal techniques. But I can understand TLG point of view too, and I think they have their good reasons.

That's a good news, because last time I looked at PaB, the choice was very poor. Anyway, it seems to me the costs are increased... did you have the same feeling?

Note that a post without the preview image can't be considered regular. If you want to regularize your insertion, you should include the image in the post after you have resized it. PS: the second set appears incomplete. Do you think to add some replacement for it?

I think the real problem with autogenerated instructions is that often the bricks are placed on the "dark side of the model" That means that the brick is placed for example on the back of your model when you are looking at it from the front, so you can't see where the brick is placed (because, obviously, in the HTML instructions you can't rotate the model). I think that's the main improvement LDD needs: if a brick is placed in a place not visible from the present point of view, the algorithm should rotate properly the model before generating the image. That implies another little improvement: instead than offer 4 bricks every step, LDD should create groups of pieces that are well visible from the same point of view, so that is possible to use the same image to place that. I say that because the last time I tested the instruction, LDD placed 3 pieces in front of the model, and one in the back, so that the last one was not visible and I manually have to create a separate screenshot only for this (and I had to remember to delete the box with the pieces to avoid it repeats for this piece). PS: at start, I looked for your old post regarding instructions, but I didn't find it! EDIT: could be that?

Little update to my list at post #2 (under groups category).

If the pieces you are asking for are "taken" from LDD, you can use LDD manager (or other little software that has recently appears in the LDD section) to convert LEGO id and Colours in Bricklink's ones.

What's the problem, exactly? You can easily convert the HTML instruction generated by LDD in a pdf file: open the html file with a word processor (for example LibreOffice Writer) and then export it as a PDF. It could be necessary some adjustment to best fit the steps to the page of the pdf document. EDIT: I noticed now that the new instructions are not so easy to import in a word processor. The result is not so good to obtain a pdf with instructions without a long adaption. So probably the best way to create instructions is: Generate Building instructions using LDD function. Remember to activate the advanced graphics in LDD or it will be difficult to use the instructions if the bricks will have not borders. Navigate through steps, and for each screenshot rotate the model choosing the best angle and take and take a screenshot with CTRL+K shortcut. Note that it is not necessary to take a screenshot for each step. LDD adds 4 pieces every time showing the added pieces in a box, so usually you can take a screenshot every 4 steps. Once you have the images, you can open a word processor and insert that dragging that inside the pages and placing that. At last, you can export your work in PDF. The procedure could be a bit laborious, especially for models with hundreds steps, but the result is surely good.

Very good, so you can use it to store your images instead then the forum's attachment function, that is limited and a bit limiting. But perhaps you have too few posts to use the image tag, so wait your postcount increased a bit. In the meantime you could introduce yourself here. Thanks for the fast edit.

@TotalyWicked Hi, the image you attached is too big, the maximum size allowed is 800x600. Could you replace it with a smaller version? Anyway, I suggest you to host your images and ldr files on a file hosting site. The most used here is brickshelf, that allows the hotlink of the files.

The aim of this guide is not to provide a complete scenery of POWRay rendering. We want to create a "ready to use" guide to help a user that is not familiar with POWRay to obtain a good quality rendering without learning to use the involved software. Anyway some addition will be surely made to the present guide. PS: the problem with mac software is that no one of us have a mac to test that. So if you are familiar with POWRay rendering on a mac, you could directly propose the necessary additions.

The guide is a work in progress, at the moment. It has been posted to start to listen user's opinions. I hope it will be possible to provide e ultra-compact version of the guide soon.

A bug for me! Using rotation tool with bionicle type ball joint (bricks 60176 and 57909), it appears 3 textfields, one for each axis. Each textfield has 2 buttons to increase and decrease the angle. Well, using the buttons of the first textfield, changes the value of the third and vice versa! Even more weird, if I change the value with a direct input in the textfield, the result seems to be unpredictable! (try to modify more than one time to see what I mean)

For further use.

Are these or these good enough? Otherwise you could download the lxf file of the Cafe Corner and use LDD to assist you in the building process. Unfortunately the file is not exactly up to date, but it should be enough good to help you with colours.

What kids expect from new LEGO is another matter. I'd like to know what's the opinion of us AFOLs.

Yes, the head is in the most of the cases the part that "suffers" of the new style. Often the body is not so "rounded". As I think the head is one of the most important part of the figure, perfectly sufficient to see the difference between the "old" and the "new" style. Oh, didn't noticed that the new owl was different (and I have a pair hof that!): I thought it was only more decorated! Anyway I consider both as a variants of "new" style, while the bird 2546 suits the old style much better.

The rest of EB must consider this section more interesting and than come here to read! Jokes apart, I agree with Superkalle: the device is strongly related with LEGO cad software, so I think this is the right section.

It seems I'm in the minority! @ibecks, @Hrw-Amen Don't forget to vote in the poll! On the contrary, I think the old animals, with their flat surfaces, are more assimilable to bricks, and than more "LEGO". That's why I don't like minidolls or belville characters: these figures seems normal toys, not lego. And now it seems to me that animals and other creatures are following the same way... Absolutely agree: I hate big monolithic pieces, every movement makes the figure more playable and interesting.

I never noticed that! I thought groups only allows to easily select bricks (and selected bricks can be moved together, the connection is not necessary), but I didn't thought that groups could influence tools such as the rotation one. I'll make a try later!

LDD, differently from other lego cad software, recognize connection among bricks. Two bricks are connected when in "real world" when you can take one grabbing the other. In the "digital word" connected bricks can be considered a single element when you use functions like rotation, connected selection tool, ecc... (and that's why when you rotate the car, some element don't move with the rest of the car). Unfortunately LDD need to program connection among bricks to recognize it. That means that a connection that has not been programmed is impossible in LDD. In that situations, often you can place two bricks so that they appears connected, but LDD see the bricks simply as "put beside".

Oh, that's why I really don't like these sets! This kind of design incentive the use of BPP and BU®P. The use of big specialized pieces reduces the reusability and the fun in building a set. Fortunately (for me, at least) many series preserve the old "look and feel", especially the creator one. The series that I think is get worse is the technic one: the new smooth technic bricks that completely replaced the old ones are much less playable, imho. Anyway, that's another speech. Let's speak about creatures only! PS: MBPs are fantastic!

I open this topic to understand what's the opinion of AFOLS about the more realistic style that TLG has giving to creature and animals. So I prepared an image with some comparison. At the left had there are the stylized versions, while on the right hand the newer and more realistic versions. Note that often the stylized versions are custom products, made by third parts as compatible bricks. I think that this is the way many fans would expect that TLG would produce these pieces. At the bottom, under the red line, other two examples of stylized animals: a sheep (a custom work that TLG hasn't produced yet) and a classic horse produced by TLG (the newer version differs only for a less stylized decoration of the eyes). Note that a similar discourse could be made about minifigures heads: some of that (for example C-3PO head) uses custom bricks instead than the classic 3626a. About me, my vote goes to the old stylized versions. I don't know why, but the new versions seems to me "not much LEGO" and don't revoke the same kind of feeling the old version does.

You're welcome. I have to ask you another thing. The image you inserted is too big and need to be resized. The image have to stay inside a 512x512 pixel. Besides, the set's data have to be highlighted in bold. You can find all the rules of the topic in the first post.