Superkalle

Interesting new concept: LEGO-X

Great work Lasse

About patents. Many of LEGOs patens on bricks are so called design patents, i.e. not a traditional patent (based on a invention/technical solution). Design patents are only valid in US. I'm not sure patents (of any kind) are relevant for the discussion since they concern the copying/manufacturing of the individual brick, i.e. their purpose is to prevent competitors from making the same type solution/design for the brick. Maybe I'm taking this discussion a bit further OT now, but I guess one has to divide MOC building into a couple of subcases to get some grip on it: Question 1 - Parts used 1) Building a MOC using only traditional/non-IP/non-protected bricks (2x4, bows etc) 2) Building a MOC using also IP-parts (i.e. SW minifigs etc) Question 2 - Design protection a) Building a MOC that is a copy of a real-world object that is not design protected (i.e. Niagara Falls or Notre Dame) b) Building a MOC that is a copy of a real world object that is design protected (i.e. a Ford F-150) c) Building a MOC that is a copy of someones elses MOC (can be of type a or b above). Question 3 - Commercial aspect Then the next question is increasing level of "commerciality" I suppose A) Is the MOC a one-off not for sale (99% of ones made in community) B) Is the MOC a one-off for sale C) Is the MOC made in many copies and for sale If one combine one from each group above, then we have a a lot of different case. Which one(s) are we talking about in this discussion?

Great post Peppy! And a super definition of what Action and Adventure Themes is all about I learned a few things myself that I thought I already knew

Hello and welcome to the Eurobricks forums! I'm moving your topic from the LDD forums to the Special Themes forum. The LDD forums is mostly for discussing digital tools, techniques etc

What a great video-presentation by Marcos. One of the best I've seen. And the tiny plane with the swept wings...and the micro fork lift. Genious

As you may have heard, Sergio Reano, the author of the SR3D Ldraw CAD tool, tragically passed away this past fall. A huge loss for the LEGO CAD community. News reach us now that the Ldraw.org steering committee has awarded Sergio the James Jessiman Memorial Award for 2014. Please read more here and be sure to click through to the Ldraw forums to read a touching note from Sergios wife.

He, he....maybe I should have written "Top 5" or something like this. But it doesn't matter - as long as they are in order of importance :-)

Thanks for sharing here Legolijntjes. He was well deserved for the prize. And what a lovely and moving note from his wife.

I'm preparing an updated "most wanted" list to send to the LDD Team. So I ask you all to re-post your most-wanted lists, sorted in order of importance, so the most important brick on top and so on. NOTE: (important) The bricks you wish for can be new or old (legacy). Note however that brand new bricks (i.e. from the 2015 wave of sets) normally is added to LDD anyway, so you don't need to wish for those. If you feel a certain decoration, or adding flex to a part, or an updated LDD Palette or something else is most important, then put it in the list. Bricks that are more common (i.e. exist in more sets) have higher likelihood of getting into LDD then really odd/rare parts. Don't wish for new features in LDD - this list is only for things that can be added in a new brickset (bricks, flex, multi-coloring, decorations etc). And as always - I have no idea which bricks (if any) will be added to a next brick update. This is only our wish-list as fans/users.

I had a look at this. I don't have the fairings, but a friend of mine measured the holes in one of his and they were 7.7 mm. The 6590 bushing I measured to 7.4 mm, and the 62462 2L Tube to almost 7.9 mm. So based on this, it seems that the yellow fairings in your picture are buggy in the sense that they should accept the 6590 bushing, but that the fairings are are correct in that they shouldn't accept the 2L Tube. This would also mean that the blue fairings in your picture have to small collision volumes, i.e. they allow bricks into the holes that won't fit with physical bricks (i.e. the 2L Tube).

Hello TimeLapse Since you are a new member, let me start by saying Welcome to Eurobricks About your post/project, we're normally not 100% comfortable with post of a LEGO Ideas project like this, since it can be interpreted as trying to collect votes. In any case, I'm moving this to the Town forum where hopefully you can get some more and better feedback on your model. The LDD forum is more for discussion techniques and tools.

No worries.

Yeah, this is a well known bug. There is a workaround though, not perfect, but still. Looking at the attached image - Yellow bar will work - Orange bar will be removed - Red bar will work For the yellow bar, the trick is to place the bar first, and then the 1x1 cone

This seems to be an issue of placing the MDB-file in a folder that is not read-only, or that the file itself is read-only. Have you tried to right click the MDB-file > Properties > and check if it's read-only? Sorry, I'm not sure I can help you any more then that since this seems to be more an operating system error then a LDD Manager error.

I fell for the curiosity and went and bought one of the 2015 sets (the 60065) and a had a look. And it appears there has been a re-mold made of the 15712. The plate thickness of the older 1x1 Modified Tile with clip is 3.25 on some, and then 3.2 on some (3.2 being the standard plate thickness). The new measurement of the 15712 re-mold is 3.0 mm. This brings it to the same thickness as the recessed part of 92280 1x2 with clip on top. Now, why these two bricks (15712 and 92280) have this thickness of 3.0 mm I have no clue of (see attached file). Anyone else knows or can figure it out? Having said all the above, there is still an illegal design of in the search-light, because it will still begin to snap out if you move it forward (but it's not so bad now). Capture.zip

Well, to be honest, I tried it with the old version, so maybe I shouldn't be so definitive in case there has been a change to the new one.

I pulled out some real bricks to have a look at this, and I don't think I've seen a brick so much in stress in a long time. When you put the 1x1 Modified Tile facing full forward, it's almost starting to bend out of snap. Definitely a nominee for the "2015 most illegal design in an official set".

That's what I did too to manage to open it. Actually I removed all Rigid Systems in the LXFML, set to Max compatabilitiy level, then opened and removed the baseplates under to get it a bit more managable.

Finally a use for that element

Here is a version for you without the baseplates. Generally, I think perhaps you are using LDD like a "layout" program, and then using bricks and techniques in a way that may not work IRL. LDD is intended for projects with perhaps up to max 10.000 brick projects (or thereabouts). Mini Race Track2.lxf

Good one The driving ring was a good find. I thought it was all fixed with the last update, but apperantly not The many un-released colors is because TLG internally has defined/used those colors at one time. Could either be for LEGOland usage or for test models. But it is a "bug" in the sense that it should be possible for the LDD Team to do a better job of screening out these colors. I had a look at a physical 92910, and it looks like the one in LDD has incorrect geometry, and so consequently the collision volume is also wrong. Plenty of good finds here. The pie topping is and odd one, because the "decoration" tool is behaving like the picker tool on it, i.e. with the fading/flashing color change when holding the picker tool mouse pointer over it. Not sure what's going on with that one. As for open studs, I hadn't thought about the fact that the 3755 is the only one with hollow cavity, but it's probably like you say because of the 3.2 mm holes in the studs. As for the 3245 (1x2x2) it used to have a holder for a cross axle in the underside, but in later molds it was removed (but maintaining the same DesignID as with many similar examples). One could possibly argue that that brick should have a cavity so that at least one could scaffold an x-axle in place.

Well spotted. Besides lack of good collision volumes it also seem like the 3.2 mm bar connectivity field is a tad to long (only a few mm, but still) on the tail which permits it to "sink in" even further then necessary.

It's been like that since the beginning. I was told that it has to do with the fact that a 3.2 mm bar (any type) cannot both be connected to the hole in an open stud and something else connected to that stud. It's a bug for sure, but I guess it has to do with the core connectivity setup in LDD, and hence it can't be fixed that easy. A workaround is to first place the 3.2 bar (i.e. the 63965) in the stud-hole, and then place the dish. The dish will float slightly, but at least all things will be in their right place. (see attached zip). Untitled.zip

Yupp, that was an odd one. I tried some other bricks too, but none show this behavior.