Superkalle

Very nice render The blue is coming across a bit intense/strong. I belive the color is right, but it should be less powerful. Hrontos, is there a way to adjust color intensity as a general value for some colors (or all colors)? I suppose that reducing intesity in photoshop would also work, but that would apply to the whole image, and it just seems here as the blue is too strong. (or maybe it's just because it's so much of it and the other parts are mostly grey?) EDIT: To be honest, also the transparent parts are coming across very powerful, where real LEGO would be more pale.

This seems more of a MOC project, then a pure Digital Designer question/issue/project (even though digital tools can be really helpful in the creative/planning phase of a MOC project). I'm moving this over to the Trains forum here on Eurobricks, where I think there might be a lot more people that can help out

Hm, I think the 'ol "Generate LXF" feature in LDD Manager will come in handy now. It's been there forever without any real use, but now it's suddenly REALLY useful I'll do some upgrades and have a new version out soon!

I just got another mail from the guys in LDD Team. They are laying it thick on us now; seems they have another undocumented feature up their sleeve: Big up to the developers in Billund for this

Yeah, you're right - the teeth won't mes. Bummer. It looks very much like some collision volumes in the brick that are too big. I'm rating this high prio since it makes the brick pretty much impossible to use.

As you have noticed, the brickset is now on version 385.2 I was told that two bugs are fixed: 1) the "VISOR/HELMET" bug 2) the "4855 Roof tile" where bricks wouldn't fit. (The latter one was the most serious since it would cause bricks to be removed while opening and old LXF).

Yes, and it was you that found it I sent in a report, and the day after it was fixed. I think that's pretty cool also. about the minifig thing: only one neck item at a time allowed at the moment. This is not so strange actually, because if I remember correctly it is very rarely that official sets/minifigs have dual accessories (meaning that it may be that the minifig was not designed/made for it). But I'm not deep water here, so I'm not 100% usre. But there is a workaround using the "group and move" method. It's been explained many times in the forum. See if you can find it. Otherwise ask again here and maybe someone can help.

Thanks

Anyone know what this piece is: 98117

It seems you can also fit it by just dragging the torso down towards the legs. At some very fine point it will "click on" all the way. (odd bug).

Looking at BL, it should connect to the top of a torso, so that's a bug. Like you say, in LDD it only connects to the legs...but I'm wondering if that should even be possible with the physical brick. Anyone who has one that can test? EDIT: the brick we're talking about is the top of one of the Ninjago figs: 99415 in LDD, this in BL

After you select the bricks and switch to the Pain tool, you have to actively click the color in the color palette to make it work.

The 4156 GARRISON CAP I think was in a minifig keychain, but was never released as a separate piece. Why it's in LDD I don't know, but I guess since it got a DesignID (4156) it was added without anyone knowing it was "just" a keychain brick.

I got some extra info back quickly about the previous bug. Apparently a fix was made for the visor so that it would fit on the new SW helmet 61182. Unfortunately the visor was then not fully regression tested. But the bug report has been acknowledged, and I guess that's a good first step. While playing around I also noticed that the visor 6119 will also not fit on some of the space helmets (like 87781), but that seems to be more a collision error bug. Also reported now. Anyway, if you guys find any other bugs relating to helmets and visor (or anything else), post 'em here. And since this is a new topic for the 4.3.5 release - if you find any errors that was allready in 4.2.5 and didnt' get fixed, please repost them here again (or link to the post in the 4.2.5 bug topic)

Shit...my covers' been blown I'd love to take you up on that offer. I'll PM you

Report all 4.3.5 bugs here You're right. Workaround: Place the visor on a 3842 helmet. Rotate the visor about 7 degrees forward (flip it down). Now it will fit on the 87781. EDIT: You can report in this forum (here is the new topic for 4.3.5). I collect each and everyone and send to the LDD Team. You can also report a bug to the LEGO Customer Service help desk.

You're right. Workaround: Place the visor on a 3842 helmet. Rotate the visor about 7 degrees forward (flip it down). Now it will fit on the 87781. EDIT: You can report in this forum (here is the new topic for 4.3.5). I collect each and everyone and send to the LDD Team. You can also report a bug to the LEGO Customer Service help desk.

LDD 4.3.5 is released Major news for all users of LEGO Digital Designer - version 4.3.5 was released today. 212 new bricks - 118 bricks bug fixes - 9 new decorations Read more and discuss it all here

Just started LDD and, voila, a new version downloading EDIT: version is 4.3.5. Brickset version is 835, a major step up from the old 604 EDIT: info from the LDD team via mail: 212 new bricks. 118 bricks had one or more bug fixes. 9 new decorations.

Yepp, now we're talking. It's the naturally the best way if we want to keep track of LDD version. But it's also possible to instead just track the date when the post was added or modified, because the brickset version is a direct function of date (since LDD is auto updating, we know that all people use the same brickset version at a given time). To be honest, and digging into this even one more level, I have been even wondering what the need of tracking the LDD version OR brickset is in the first place. What does it give us? Sure, it can give some indication of which bricks are missing (and could possibly be available in a later brickset). But isn't that what we keep track of in the "notes/missing bricks" section of each post. And the same with collision errors etc that may have been fixed. I'm not saying keeping track of LDD Version is a bad thing, just wondering what the good is (and being a bit of the devils advocate I suppose). We have to put the value of each increased piece of data we track in contrast to increased the threshold for people posting new sets in this topic.

Thanks. It's been a team work. And legolijntjes over at the Ldraw topic has also been involved, so he is using the same solution now. We've been discussing this a lot internally. Actually it's not really the LDD version that's important to track, but the brickset version. For example, LDD 4 is spanning several bricksets with sometimes several hundred bricks added between. That's why we decided it was not really enough to track only major version, and hence the move to 4.x But the main "drawback" with tracking LDD (or brickset) version, is that it needs updating when people like you have the nerv () to update existing sets. When I and Calabar talked about this, I actually voted to drop the LDD version cause it just takes time to track it, but he persisted, and won the battle Aha, you mean it could be dropped. Good point. The problem is that to make the index easy to maintain, it's best to avoid all types of customized categorisation. Besides, I suppose that people looking for a set in the index use the "search" function, and then the theme categorisation is actually of less importance (sorry to be a party pooper, but isn't it so?). But this is were Calabar steps in....because he decides this (and I belive you and him are on the same wave lenght).

Index bug fixed and updated: - 4.2 reverted back to 4 pending future releases of the index. - sorting error fixed - mini slave 1 moved to correct subtheme

I've been working some with Calabar on the new index, so I can perhaps answer some questions (that are partly my fault) 1) The index is now using the BrickLink theme structure as a foundation. There was discussion about using Brickset, but that didn't work out technically at the moment. Besides, the BL and Brickset theme structure is about 90% the same (but the Brickset is honestly a bit better). 2) Yes, there are inconsistencies between LDD 4 and 4.2 - that's my fault though. 3) Q: Why should theme names be in square brackets? 4) Yes, you're right, some sets are in the wrong theme. We'll look into that. EDIT: Found the cause. Now, onto the solution... 5) Yes, the Mini slave 1 should be in a sub-theme. Once again, my fault. Anyway, the index is undergoing some major re-structuring in terms of how it's handled, and it's now being auto generated, so there might be some small errors coming up. Thanks for noting

Hulk_smash, please make a habit of posting a bit more information when you're asking a question. Now you had two people guessing just what the part was. Just a link to BrickLink or even a part number would help Thanks

Hi Really nice MOC with plenty of innovative ideas. Can't remember that I've seen a sawmill MOC before either. I'm moving this post over to the Town section, since we have a rule that digital MOCs should be posted in the respective theme here at EB.