Superkalle

No worries on my part

Hi Yes, I'll have a look at compiling in 64-bit office. Give me a couple of days to try it and I'll give you an answer.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow. Is that all that's in the file? Sorry if I'm being dumb here, but this is what the file should look like. What if you add this and start. Still crash? language=en ApplicationID=4ba67fcd-8187-4986-ac15-3c845c1db5b5 UseShadersInScene=no UseShadersInPalette=no CompatibilityModeLevel=100 UseRoundEdges=no

It became hours. OK, please try the new version 0.99b, see if it works. (same download location as earlier versions).

Short status update: I've managed to reprodcue the Error 13 - Type Mismatch myself and found the cause. Aarrgghh MS. A new versin will be out shortly, in a matter of days.

Long shot: can you try to add "PLAYSOUND=no" to your preferences.ini file?

Good to see you back Tore. And with a nice list of missing parts to wish for the next LDD

Not being a HF expert, what is the LDD part numer of the shell?

It's Toxic Reapa that's behind this. I know it Seriously though - both bugs have been discovered earlier and are reported to TLG.

These errors are always so hard to track down, but in most the cases, it's due the graphics drivers and/or graphics card. There really isn't much in LDD otherwise that is very complicated or could cause exceptions. About this issue. First question: Have you followed all the steps in the first post in this topic, including updating drivers AND DirectX drivers, setting LDD to safe mode and doing a complete re-install? Please verify that you have done all this to the letter. If that doesn't work - Have you tried to install an older version of LDD. Like 2.4 or 3.1? Please report in this topic when you've tried all of the above. (The same goes for Sillyfrog)

There is a function that will do what you want (and more) - it's the Model Comonality Analysis. It allows you to compare not only two models, but as many as you like. 1) First add the models you want to compare to Groups (there is a tab in the Main List of models). You can create your own groups if you want. 2) Then start Model Comonality Analysis and the select that group 3) Now enjoy the report with statistics and all (PS: I might remove the Compare Models feature as it may just be confusing and is a subset of the above feature)

Well, it seems you have a point here. I have to look again. The intersting thing about these seamingly minor bugs is that sometimes they lead the way to some more serious underlying issue.

Yeah, but have you taken into account that the 57028 arrow in the real world can move up/wiggle about a bit inside the 57796 housing? (Or am I completely missing something here... )

Neither I would say. With physical bricks, the 57028 arrow can move about slightly in the housing, so I suspect that would give the clearance needed (I did some quick unscientific tests with the bricks here at home and it seemed like it would be OK).

Hmm, that is close. If you place a 1x1 round plate and then a 30136 1x2 brick on top of it, you can see it clips into the 1x6 plate. It might have been judged at design review that there was some leaway in the 2x2 turntable joint, and it was therefore legal. But you can try this yourself. Try to stick a piece of paper in the gap. If it will slip in and out freely, it's OK. If not - you found an illegal build.

Thanks a lot for those clearifications. I'll keep looking into it...this MUST be solved, right

I don't know to be honest I'm just trying to analyze the difference between a program where you basically create something from scratch (word, excel, AutoCAD...the list is endless) with programs where you use predefined entities created by someone (like LDD, AutoCad libraries) and how the "allows reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability" applies in these cases. And yes, the method to do 3D printing is known, but just because it's known doesn't mean it's legal. At least that's how I've understood it, but I'm no expert. All I'm saying is that we as a community have to think twice about this. We have so far had a really beneficial relationship with the LDD team. They gave us LU and Extended Mode even if they didn't have to (and actually had no incentive to), they give us bricks we wish for (even though unofficial) and they listen to our requests for new features (something I hope will increase now that DbM is out of the picture). And a few years back the provided some prices for contest we had then.

I'm investigating futher Can you please help me with: 1) What operating system are you using 2) Do you have any other version of MS Office installed? 3) Can you try to re-install the Access 2003 runtime Thanks

Can you share the LXF - I'd like to try one thing.

Yepp, and I like that you've pointed that out, because I agree that it was the innovative approach of (among other) AFOLs that has helped TLG during the crisis (just look at all the AFOLs that got employement at TLG as designers. Jamie Berard just to name one). But (and this is important), there is a big difference between really stretching what you can do with LEGO and building illegal. The great innovation of the new designs from TLG is that they use innovative techniques within the boundaries of the legal principles. Now that's something extra and why I love to build official sets and bump into some clever solution where I just go "wow...that is just so good"

Thanks for sharing Mike

It was not TLG centrally that gave away the geometries. As I understand it was someone working within the LEGO Universe project at the time. I think the difference here is that if you write some export filter or so, for example for MS Word, that's no problem, because you are not reverse-engineering the content in any particular word file, just the "place holder" (the DOC-format). With LDD it's not the reverse engineering of the program that is the issue, or even the LXF-format (which is BTW allready public), but the brick geometries.

It's not very hard to implement. In fact, the LDD developers have an internal debug version of LDD that does just that, and they use it to be able to open those "UnplaceableBricksDump.lxfml" to view offending bricks. So why haven't they enabled that as a switch on/switch off feature for regular uses? I see three reasons 1) LDD is a tool for consumers. Sure, with the removal of DbM and LU, the strong focus on children can be losened somewhat, but it's still primarily a tool for LEGO consumers - not advanced AFOL MOC:ers. 2) If a certain builder uses collision control off, and then another is in "on" mode and they share files...there will be a problem when bricks are removed 3) By not allowing it, builders are forced to use legal techniques. Sure there are a few cases we LDD users have discovered where official sets are using illegal techniques, but those are very, very few and are a result of miss in the internal TLG model review process. So why is TLG forcing legal techniques, even in a CAD tool? Because illegal techniques destroy the bricks. Plastic (which is a polymer), is a very odd material. Unlike metal, it can permanently stretch even a room temperature and moderate loads. LEGO will not incorporate connections in their sets that will over time destroy the form or clutch power of the bricks - and I guess they don't want to enable consumers to make illegal builds in a CAD tool either. It's just a matter of principle. Sure LDraw tools can allow that, but they are not a corporation with responsibility in the same was as TLG. Personally I actually like this "side effect" of LDD that you can only build legal, since I'm not a big fan of some of the MOCs you see nowadays and that are called "fantastic work"; with bricks that are not fully connected, things attached at an angle, or pieces that models that sometimes won't hold together if you touch them. Besides, for me LDD is a tool for the design process, and that is where its strength lies - you can quickly work with ideas in preparation for the physical build, and then the snap-together feauture makes all the difference in the world, since it makes LDD ultra fast to build with. EDIT: About the bug that Aleluca reported. That has nothing to do will illegal or not illegal - it's just a plain ol' nasty LDD bug And the technique to attach those two bricks is actually not illegal per se - it's when you place another brick ontop of them that it becomes illegal (because of the reason explained by Aanchir and others). Now, why TLG accepts a 1x1 plate or 1x1 round plate to attach to a technic hole, or even a 1x1 Round brick, but NOT 1x1 Bricks, I don't know

OK, I'll look right into it. Can you (or alan-muhl) make the LXF you are importing available to me please