Superkalle

Fantastic review Jim.

...so for all practical purposes the answer is simply: You can't. But you can try Ldraw - there you can change/apply decorations.

Yeah, with decorations LDD Manager is a bit picky. You have to apply the decorations exactly like in the real brick (dual sided minifig heads need decoration on both sides etc). Also, since Item-ID's change at BL all the time, there are occasions when you try to upload something made in LDD Manager, and it doesn't match the BL part numbers anymore. That's the reasons I release updated versions all the time. As a matter of fact, there is a new one out in a few weeks with all fresh data. About Office 64, I can definitely understand your annoyment. I can't remember how many articles I've read that recommend people to go for Office 32. I think MS did a mistake by even offering 64 bit, specially when you can't install 32 and 64 bit side by side, and also that you can't open a 32-bit access file on 64 (when 99% of all Access apps around the world are made in 32-bit).

I'm not sure this is a digital or not, but I think the question will reach a wider audience and fits better in the LEGO General discussion forum. Moving it there

I'm not sure I understand either how you can do this. Interesting though. Can you explain a bit?

That is really smart - never thought about it Aaah, now I see what you mean bbqqq - you use the entire textstring with both DesignID and materials as one total string. Yes that is possible, as long as one keeps in mind that some bricks have multiple materials values, and in some cases also decorations, such as this example: <Part refID="127" designID="3815" materials="21,0,0" decoration="0,0">

There is a function is LDD Manager that let's you do this called "Batch delete or replace parts". The benefit of the function compared to a text search & replace like showed by bbqqq is that it takes into consideration that only a certain combination of DesignID's and colors should be changed - for example, in this case you only want to replace color of the 3673/2780 and not on any other parts. (This could be done also without LDD Manager if you first replace the DesignID with the text-editor method and then the color inside LDD but it's more practiable with LDD Manager since you explained you already use it anyway). Note however that the feature is "dumb" in the sense that in only replaces the DesignID (part number). So if the two parts (3673 and 2780) have different zero points, then it won't work. Easiest was to find out is just to try a batch replace and open the file afterwards. If none of the "new" parts are removed by LDD, it worked

This is one case where the Hinge Aling Tool would be really helpful if it worked.

Not bug...flex just isn't implemented yet - like for many parts.

Yes, they must have done so, because the version I have in front of me allows a pin to go through. Actually, it's not uncommon for LEGO to keep the same DesignID even though they make slight mold alterations.

Lego Otaku, how do you mean there is not hole?

Clever Yes, please move (or copy) the trick to the LDD Tricks topic

And super tiny detail: the paint roller should be part 62462, not 75535. For the pens I guess it can stay 62462 because they are "virtual" anyway. @bbqqq - that was a nice trick with the LEGO logo. Never seen that before. However I'm not sure it's suitable in this topic where the strive is to only use standard LDD techniques

I think this could be worth for the Ambassadors to bring up with TLG/CEE Team. Just to clear up why it happened, and what the rules are.

Wouldn't it be better to just report it to Customer Services - not sure this is an issue for the CEE Team.

I agree with the rest of you on this. For me this "legal" thing is actually pretty simple and straight forward. LEGO is two things: 1) A bunch of loose parts 2) A system (with restrictions) of how those parts can be connected to one another. The 2) is very important. It's the restrictions that is challenge and grandness of LEGO. It's what the whole product is all about. So what does this imply? Well, some base rules: 1) Bricks should connect properly to each other using the dedicated connections 2) Bricks shouldn't be destroyed over time (Not over-stressing the bricks) 3) Models should be possible to handle (at least somewhat) without falling apart. 4) Only defined system parts should be used *) ....and a few more which doesn't need to be mentioned now . If you step away from these key principles, then there is little from stopping you from also using glue, paint or even use clay or balsa wood? Yes, a bit or ranting, but still. Sure, everyone can do what they wan't with their own bricks and I'm OK with that, but when it comes to viewing MOCs, I personally get more satisfaction from looking at a model that is built in System, and where it's obvious the builder has spent those extra hours to get a nice solution without resorting to "odd" methods. *) With this I mean parts that are listed at the back of the building instruction (i.e. has an ElementID and can be ordered from the LEGO Customer Services). That's why minifig hands, arms, loose lever sticks etc can't be used....they are not part of the LEGO System and cannot be used by the TLG designers.

Was the box crushed in any way? I'm thinking that the bricks inside could have been pushed hard into one another? If not, a sure bet is always to call the LEGO Customer Services and they should send you new bricks.

I'm not sure I understand. I can't see a 6562 in the instructions on step 15.

Here are two more for your template Gnac. Note that they are actual connections in LDD. I suppose example usages would be for decoration or to attach a spare tire to a car.

Exactly

Hello everyone. Just wanted to let you know that Calabar will be stepping down as Regulator after many years of solid work. Thankfully though, he has agreed to stay on and continue to index the Official Sets in LDD topic . I have to say, that it's actually much thanks to Calabars famous "order and structure" policy ( ) that the topic has become such a super-asset for LDD users. Thanks Calabar!

I found a few errors in the model (see attached modded LXF): - Light Yellow parts should be Dark Stone Grey, not Medium Stone Grey - Lime part was missing and should be black - Medium Azure part was missing and should be red - Pink parts should be black, not Medium Stone Grey You can copy/use the fixed model in the attached LXF if you want. About the steering wheel...that is a very odd issue. I can't position it either, and looking from the model (see image in capture.zip), I can't understand how that can even fit in the physical model, since the collision error is so severe. Is there anyone out there that has actually built this model for real, and can post a picture of how the steering wheel attachment look? 42005_mod.lxf Capture.zip

No, I got your point about that one. It was first discovered in the Tower Bridge model so it's allready "on our list" But the possibility to put a stud in the matrix has been discussed a long time if it was legal or not (i.e. too much force on the thin lamellas), but with these recent example, it seems clear that TLG has now (after many years) again cleared the path for using it like in the Maersk ship. Yes, but that is an old model, before they tightened up the restrictions. Don't know if this one is allowed too know, but I doubt it. Two lamellas being engagned are shorter, and thus the stud would push harder on the remaining two. EDIT: I'll have a look at the other two bug reports later tonigh.

Funny you should mention this Pbat, because I was thinking exactly the same thing (it's a disease when you start looking at new LEGO-sets and trying to figure out if it can be done in LDD ). As for putting a stud in the lattice of 3185, I think it's actually legal. The spacing of the lamellas cross-joints is so large in this element that the lamellas can flex enough (i.e. you can only put the stud in the three cavities in the center line). This is not the case in 3633. This means that 3186 should be legal as well, but only the two holes in the center line. Hope it makes sense what I just wrote.