SteamSewnEmpire

Fascinating. I will try that. You're a miracle worker - that fixed everything. So, yes, that would definitely imply that some files within LDD develop some kind of bizarre "hangup" that is directly coupled to the bricks. What a ludicrous design flaw - it's almost like a game with a memory leak, but with a file.

The nonsensical division of parts in Stud.io makes it completely unusable for me.

Honestly, my LDD is crashing every time I attempt to save the model right now. I am so frustrated with this terrible program that I'm on the verge of just giving the whole thing up.

Also, would using two Powered Up XL motors then require 2 battery packs? I read that you can only use one motor per pack.

Okay, so I am pretty sure that this isn't just my imagination at this point. Lately, I've been building some rather complex train models (though these typically are significantly under 2,000 parts), and I have noticed that some LXF files are more, uh, "cranky" than others. And what I mean by that is that these LXF files take MUCH longer to load (on my brand new, extremely fast computer) - like on the order of 30-40 seconds, and have a high propensity for crashing. Moreover, if elements from these LXF files are incorporated into another LXF file, then it has the effect of corrupting the second LXF file and turning it into a slow-loading, frequently-crashing dog, too. As an example, recently I was building the 20th Century Limited 4-6-4 locomotive. I started with a clean build on the engine-half of the locomotive, and for the duration that I was working on this file, load times were generally 5-10 seconds (at most), and I never experienced a crash. When it came time to produce the tender, I decided to import in a one from another, previously-built NYC engine and then steal parts from it (the frame, the trucks, the motor/battery arrangement, etc.). Tenders are not complicated models - they're essentially a box on wheels. All the fancy SNOTing, bent tubes, etc. are in the engine. Yet, the moment I imported this tender, the primary LXF file for the engine went straight to hell. Now, it takes close to a minute to load into LDD, and frequently crashes upon attempted saves. It has taken on the characteristics - apparently - of the tender's (and the the tender's old locomotive)'s file; a slow loader. And this isn't a one-off experience - I've noticed this pattern before with LDD over the years: where certain files become 'bad performers,' and that any elements borrowed from these files, no matter how small they are, will bog down a new host file. Like, I could take just one truck (a single wheel assembly, or bogie) from that tender, and it still had the effect of completely ruining the host LXF wherever I happened to import it. So any element of a bad file, big or small, seems to have this accursed digital 'noise' attached to it, and brings all of that baggage to another model. My question is twofold: 1) has anyone else noticed this behavior in LDD? And, 2) if you have, have you had any luck in clearing a 'bad actor' somehow so that the model itself can be safely used/imported without a constant risk of crashing (or loading very slow)? Every time I need to make alterations to this freaking locomotive now, I run the risk that LDD is going to crash upon saving. That's ridiculous - it simply isn't that big a model, or a file, and I don't want to have to continue to deal with it, on this engine or any other project in the future.

Okay, now I am just all over the place. What is the best option here? 1) I could stick with PF and remove the additional motor in the tender. While this would half the locomotive's power, it would also be the easiest choice, would lighten the tender significantly, and wouldn't require dramatically reconfiguring the internals of the locomotive to accommodate different motors. I might also - conceivably - be able to move the battery box from the tender into the locomotive, thus increasing overall weight there, though I haven't investigated that option, as I never thought it would be necessary. 2) I could go with the Powered Up medium motors in both the Loco and the Tender (did Lego never release the PU XL motor? I cannot find it listed anywhere). Do I then need to use the boost hub, too? 3) A lot of people seem to use the WeDo motors from the Batmobile, though this comes with the same difficulties as option 2), since it will require altering the internals rather dramatically to make them fit. The most that this locomotive would ever be expected to pull is its own tender plus three scale coaches (I would never invest in more). If a single PF XL motor is enough to accomplish this, when powering the main drivers, then that's all I need. If it's not, and the second motor is a definite requirement, then I suppose PU is necessary. But I need to figure this out (and make necessary changes if applicable) now, and not when I am assembling things. As an aside, the more I look at Lego's power options, the less regard I hold the company in. These rapid shifts from one system to another only seem to be having the effect of letting the customer base down. Parts aren't a smart phone; I don't think people, and especially children, should be asked to "upgrade" every year or so, and I expect Lego to settle on a system and stand by it for at least 10 years. Releasing multiple - in some cases, seemingly competing - systems is nothing but a headache.

So do I need to incorporate the boost hub, or just the hub and motors? And what has become of the powerfunctions infrared sensor? Is that just no longer necessary?

That's likely not in LDD, I take it? Do you happen to know what its dimensions are?

I dunno. This begs the question: will I ever run it? Which seems unlikely. I guess if Lego's tech isn't up to that yet, I'll wait until such time as it is.

Actually, no, I have never experienced this. I think there are people who go over-the-top on the density of scenery and achieve a kind of "carnival prize booth" effect where their layouts are cluttered beyond all comprehension... ... and I think this tends to detract (heavily) from a good scene. When we look at the world, it is - by and large - populated by foliage. The effort to "pave over" - in the form of random festivals, businesses and industries of every sort, shops, houses, sidings, light fixtures, or just modeled trash and junk piles - to achieve some kind of visual candy store is completely misguided. Earth just doesn't tend to look like that. But when it comes to photo-realistic models, no, I think everyone should be trying as hard as they can to look real. Real never gets old for me: In fact, scenery is one of the reasons I can never fully give up on traditional model railroads, even though I find Legos more satisfying overall - because we just can't do that ^. And that is amazing. Awesome as our mocs may be; creative and even ingenious as they may become, they will always be limited by the medium we have chosen - they are never going to be anything but toys. Really cool toys... but toys. And I'm okay with that. I love Legos - I love, even as an adult, playing with Legos. You really cannot do that with a model railroad (you can follow train orders and 'play engineer,' but you can't move figures and objects around in the same way; Sephiroth, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Doc from BTTF cannot take tea in a dining car on an HO model railroad like they can with Lego). There are huge advantages to Lego that traditional model railroading will never possess. But no, when it comes to a stand-up competition in looks alone, they beat the snot out of us.

I'll look into the ladders. And the claw part is just a placeholder. It's going to require a custom piece. Actually, the motor powers the drivers. There's also a second motor in the tender powering one of those trucks.

Late to the party, but this stuff is first rate. I may have to leave room for it in my trains moving forward. With regards to the track, the funny thing is that this is really the opposite direction that the traditional hobby is going for model railroading. I think, almost certainly, that battery power is the future for N, HO, O, etc - it just solves so many issues with track. I understand that we don't paint our rails or weather, or put down real-rock ballast, or any of that - but dust is still a thing, and cleaning is a requirement when you are drawing from the rails. Not mocking people who go that route, as there are still big advantages - just saying, it is strange to see some Lego train people pining for a power source that is going to fade away in the mainstream.

Here's the full loco. It has 2 large can motors - one in the engine, and one in the tender:

Lol, that was a suggestion for him, not me. That is the "hush hush" locomotive.

Wow, that's GREAT! You have any ambition of selling the plans? I could definitely see this as the ideal starter locomotive for people looking to break into 8w.

Yup. That's the plan. The only problem is that Schupp's drivers look to me to be in the 70-74 inch diameter ballpark, whereas the J3s had 79 inch wheels. I know this doesn't sound like that much, but it had the effect of skewing the proportions of the engine very slightly. The other - bigger - issue is that the running boards are a plate too low. Because of the way the boiler is designed, I could either choose structural rigidity, or something that was aesthetically a bit closer to the mark. I went with the former, but it's still "off" to my eyes. Unfortunately, such are the limits of our artistic medium :P.

Can't believe I missed this - this is great! I want one!

That cab is excellent. First-rate. Can I trouble you for an end-on shot from the cab-side?

I didn't finish the tender because I'm running on fumes - I will get it tomorrow. Also, I am aware that the top "blade" for the nose doesn't work - after playing with dozens of parts for upwards of 90 minutes, I decided that a custom piece was called for. I feel like we're kind of loose-y goose-y when it comes to custom pieces in train tech to begin with, so this isn't as much of a reach as it might be. I think everyone here knows what this one is supposed to look like, but I'll include proto photos anyway. The model: I'm really happy with the skylining - I didn't know if the slight angle would work or not. But, in the end, I feel like the small gaps are worth the price to achieve the proper shape. If anyone had any good ideas about the top blade, I am all ears. Thanks for looking.

Thanks. I think it only came out so-so. There's no really good way to do the front end (I actually tried two versions before I settled on this one), and the actual locomotive was far rounder than I think Lego can capture in this scale.

Huh. For some reason I thought the XXL ones were bigger than that. Thanks.

Do you happen to know what part number that is? Thanks.

... for Shupp's XXL drivers in LDD? I was considering designing a locomotive again, but I don't want to begin with "off" proportions. Is there a part that matches these wheels in terms of size? Thanks.