Superkalle

A great reason for a cross-post. Thanks for sharing

Aargghh. If it's any consolation, I feel with you!

Very nice Now, let's see what our LDraw Indexer legolijntje will say about this

(Created a separate topic out of this - didn't really belong in the "LDD4 Bugs" topic)

Hispabrick issue 12 out It's high time for another issue of that great magazine Hispabrick. Packed with news, reviews and other goodies. In this issue you might especially want to check out the interview with yours truly, namely the EB staff team. Download here! Discuss here on our forums

That's what I thought too, but looking at the modelled element in LDD it is somemthing else. All brick geometries in LDD come directly from CAD-data, so there has definetely been a brick that looks exactly like the 6016 that is in LDD. Question is if anyone has ever seen it. It could be that the LDD version is a later design that was never put in production. It has happened before that there has been elements in LDD that were never put in production. The was one last year that looked nice (a car grill), that dissapeared in the next brick update. It too had a DesignID in the 5000 or 6000-range.

Hm, 2578 seems to exist in a variety of versions. The one in LDD corresponds to 2578b in BrickLink, even though it is actually missing one of the connecting panels AND it does not connect to 3928. (So that is a bug in itself!). The element used in 7242 Street Sweeper seems to be an updated version and corresponds to 2578a. What the correct DesignID is for that one I don't know. But it seems even TLG got it wrong. Search for 7242 here and you'll find that TLG mark the replacement part as 2578, also showing the old geometry (same the one in LDD). It'd be interesting if anyone that has the set 7242 could see what the DesignID is (marked inside the "shield box").

I've got a question about 6016 LATTICE BAR. In LDD this element looks very much like 62113, but comparing to BrickLink, there should be two protruding boxes on the short sides (that would fit in the holes of 3853 WINDOW FRAME 4x4). However, the 6016 in LDD does not have these and will not fit in 3853. However it will fit in the newer 60594 FRAME 1x4x3. So the question is - is 6016 incorrectly modeled in LDD? Or are there two versions of 6016 - one that we see in BrickLink, and one that is in LDD? References: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=6016 http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=62113 http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=3853 http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=60594

No problem. I guess I like to raise some fuzz also

(your list is now sort of becoming the total wish list for us LDD users!)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It is pretty much what I tried to explore/discuss in my last three posts. But it's not a big problem I agree. And I'm not sure about this myself. I'm more ventilating a topic, seeing what others think. And pointing out a phenomena with the increasing number of duplicates. And the mismatch with BrickLink and color availability. I guess it also has to with avoiding confusion for users. Like with the 2x8 brick. Is there a point in having them both in LDD? Maybe there is - I just don't see it. The same with the two 1x2 - 1x4 bracket versions. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of having them both in LDD (or in BrickLink for that matter). PS: You are right that it has nothing to do with database size at all.

OK, good points everyone. But what about the two 2x8 bricks. They are 100% the same (so it seems, at least from a usage perspective) And the 1x2x3 bowed brick. And the PLATE 3x4 W/ANGLE. There are more examples like that. Generally there seems to be a wave of updated elements flowing in from TLG these days. Seems they are doing an general overhaul of all old standard bricks. Like the 1x2 - 1x4 bracket. The new one released this year has slighty rounded edges. In BrickLink they are different bricks, but at the same time there are bricks in BL that are not distinguised between. Question is: Do we users care - could the new 1x2 - 1x4 element replace the old one in the brick palette. In my mind there is no doubt we'll see more of these almost identical duplicates in LDD in the future, since new bricks seems to be added more or less automatically (i.e. the LDD team makes no analysis if a bricks is a completely new brick or just a minor update to an existing one - they just toss them in. And sometimes the LOD is identical between the old and the new in LDD, making it impossible to distinguish between them if you don't click on it and view the DesignID. So why is this a problem you ask? I'm thinking that the brick palette risk getting cluttered with duplicates. Specially annoying when some of the "duplicate pairs" are in different categories (like with the laser sword holders). Also I'm thinking about the potential need to update LDD Manager to make a "cross-reference". Personally I find it really annoying when you use a certain DesignID in LDD, and then LDD Managers warns you that the color is rare or non-existing. Then you look at the new updated DesignID and behold - there is the color I needed. So in LDD Manager you should get a message that "the color doesn't exist with this DesignID, but there is a very similar DesignID where it does exist." Something like that...

Yeah, those are bricks that need to be kept since the "barless" is commonly used for transparent colors. It is a bit problematic though, because a lot of builders don't see the difference between them (only looking from the top they are identical). We've seen this a lot in the RCB's. The problem in this case is that if you try to order from BL, you need to use the correct brick (DesignID) matched to the right color you are using. And, yes the 1x2 plate with upright pin/holder is indeed two different bricks, the old one "out of system", and the new one "in system". So in both the above cases I guess you need to keep both. Good point!

Yes, they are. In fact many of they are visually different. But the question is - do we need them? I'm just looking at BrickLink where I see some brick that are treated as the same brick even though they may have different DesignID's. Yet in other cases, they are treated as different. I guess I was trying to open up for a discussion if some bricks in LDD could be removed because they serve no purpose at all. The bricks in the LXF-file are just examples that I could find.

There are a lot of bricks in the LDD brick database that are almost identical. I'm having this idea to see if we can convince the LDD team to remove duplicates bricks that fill no purpose. I've tried to collect all similar bricks I could find in the attached file (have I missed any?). The question is: which bricks could be considered duplicates and could be removed, and which should be kept even though they may look almost identical. What do you guys think? Have a look at the LXF. Here is also a first shot I made for criteria for duplicate removals: 1) Visible difference in LDD. If you can't visually tell the parts apart, one should be removed (or Level Of Detail of the brick needs to be updated) 2) Usage/feature difference. In some cases, even minute physical difference may allow different usage of the elements. In this case, both should be kept. 3) Color produced difference. In some cases, older and newer versions of a brick may have been produced in different colors. In this case it might be important for users to be able to explicitly use a particular brick (DesignID) (so the right color for that element can be ordered on BrickLink). SimilarElements0.lxf

Don't know specifially about a cat face. Check out the links in my earlier reply. It should have all the decorations.

Thanks for sharing

Like I said, it's not possible. Yes, some people managed to view the data in db.lif file, but no one has succesfully added custom stickers (at least not in a way that would not breach the EULA). If it's very important for you to use your own stickers, I recommened the LDraw platform.

Did you exit LDD first, edit the ini-file and then restart? Most often when people have problems with activating Extended Mode, it's because they missed some part of the instruction.

Great work Sjuip. And welcome to the forum!

Good find. I at least haven't seen that before.

My main concern is that the TLG top executives don't fully understand what a gem they have in LDD and that they only see it as a cost that needs to be tied in a immediate revenue business model (like DbM was). For me it's now doubt that digital design (the way it's been done by TLG themselves with LDD - easy to use, snap functionality etc) is here to stay, and that it actually drive building physical LEGO models.

DAF is great. But being a Swede I think VOLVO is better

We LEGO enthusiasts are often called "fans", like in AFOL, Adult Fan Of Lego. I don't like the word "fan". Makes it sound like TLG is our idol. Just like Michael Jackson is an idol. Or Elvis Presley. "Enthuisast" would be better. Specially for us LDD users, "fan" is an odd word. I mean, who has heard of an AutoCad fan? Or a Google Sketchup fan? Nah, I say: out with "fan". In with "user". Or possibly "enthusiast". Or something else... Now, who's with me?

You spoke, TLG listended