Alban Nanty

Hi, If this is really what means Stefan, this sounds difficult to me become there are potentially several compatible connection points between the two groups. For example, in the example you mentionned just above, there is 3 possibilities: - you can connect the bottom curve of the left group with the top curve of the right group to make a S - you can make a circle as you mentionned - you can connect the top curve of the left group with the bottom curve of the right group to make another S In fact this feature is not needed, because you can already acheive the goal in the 1.5 version: - Select the left group - Click ON THE TOP CURVE OF THE LEFT GROUP - Drag the group next to the curve of the right group where you want to connect - The connection is automatic Alex, I told you this notion of WHERE YOU GRAB THE GROUP was crucial for the use of the software when you wrote the Help file, and you told me you think that the user will do it naturally (unconsciously), which in fact I'm still not really convinced. BUT: There is a bug, the parts are indeed connected, but not correctly oriented. This bug however is in my TODO list for the 1.6 version. Bye.

Hi, Actually you don't need to combine all the ldraw file in it, just put them into the "MODELS" folder of the LDRAW library. I guess this folder is made for that, isn't it? But I think currently the ldraw.org website doesn't seem to welcome models. Bye. Hi, I'm sorry I'm afraid I don't understand your feature request. Could you try to explain it a bit more, please? Thanks. Thanks for the suggestion. The miroring could be easy to do.

Hi Mark, I think Alex answered very well to that question, and I've pretty much nothing to add... Handling the height on a layout software which is mainly a 2D top view software is pretty uncompatible. If you think Track Designer was not really good at that, it is not because its author did a bad job, but probably because the software is not suitable for editing height. I'm quite sure BlueBrick would comes with the same ugly solution that you would probably dislike too. I mean if you really wants to edit in 3 dimensions, probably you should use a 3D editor based on the LDRAW library. So there is no plan for now on adding the third dimension in BlueBrick because I want to keep this software easy for editing layout and prepare AFOL events, which means only one 2D top view. The only step I could do into the direction of your request would be to improve the compatibility with LDRAW. I could save the specific BlueBrick data into meta command of the LDRAW files (basically into comments), and then you would not loose any data when switching your layout between the two softwares. However, you should be aware that the LDRAW part library doesn't contains the full set models, so each time you may place a set in BlueBrick, you would not be able to see it in your LDRAW software. So what are the advantages and disadvantage of using BlueBrick (or Track Designer) instead of a LDRAW editor? - BlueBrick as an "easy to connect rail track" feature, whereas it is tedious to align all the tracks in LDRAW - You can place set in BlueBrick but you can not in LDRAW - In BlueBrick you can add text and area which are very usefull for preparing an Event with different AFOLs - But you can not edit height in BlueBrick whereas you can in LDRAW I hope I'm not too disapointing, but I just wanted to precise the scope of this kind of software (BlueBrick belongs to the family of layout editor which also contains Track Designer and Track Draw).

Hi Stefan, You don't need to send me the file, I can reproduce your bug easily. I tried to fix it for two hours yesterday, and I think I understood the reason of the bug. However I didn't succeed to fix it yet. After I fix the bug, I will probably publish a new version 1.5.1 because this bug is so nasty that it can not be left open until the 1.6 version. Thanks for reporting it. Bye.

Hi Stefan, Congratulation you found a Bug! Thank you for reporting it because it is a serious bug. However since it seemed to have already experienced it 1.4, if you would have reported it earlier, you would have had the chance to seen it fixed in 1.5. Now I guess, you will have to wait for the next release, but don't worry I put this bug in my top priority list. Bye.

Thanks for these 2 updates!

Yes, I also noticed that. I named it 153 because track designer named it 153. But we can rename it 158 if it is its correct name. And don't worry, BlueBrick already have a system to handle correctly renaming of part, to avoid part lost in old layout. Yes, please rotate your set as the original, else you may bring trouble to those who used it in a previous layout. If BlueBrick can handle a part renaming, it can not handle a change of orientation, and I would prefer to avoid writing such code. Bye.

Hi, 1) Any character in encoding ISO-8859-1 is authorized for the author part except < and > that are used for the XML tags. 2) For the description, only put the description that you can copy and paste from peeron.com. Do not put the set number as it is displayed automatically by BlueBrick. The description appears in the status bar when you move your mouse over a part and in the part list. 3) At least put the english description, and refer to the documentation for more details (I copied the corresponding chapter below) 4) Use english at least and your own language if you want (and if you don't mind translating the description) Copy of the doc: Add a description in different languages Syntax: <Description> <en>...</en> <fr>...</fr> ... </Description> Default Value: The text "Unknown" in the language currently selected for BlueBrick. Description: A short sentence that describe this part. This field is a text describing the part that is displayed by BlueBrick in the status bar of the application and in the Part List window. If you don't know what to write, I suggest using the description given by peeron.com. The part description can be translated in any language. Each translation must be enclosed inside a tag of 2 letters representing the language. When BlueBrick is parsing the part library on startup, it will only keep the description of the current language selected for BlueBrick. For example if BlueBrick is configured to use French it will only search for the <fr> tag. But if the description can not be found in the language of the application, then the English version is used as a replacement. Finally if the English version can not be found either, the text "Unknown" (translated in the language of the application) is used. So you should always at least give the English version of the description.

I agree, I would only add the left one too.

As I replied to missouri by mail, when you create a part, you should try to keep the same orientation than the LDRaw one, because this increase the compatibility with LDraw when exporting your layout in LDraw. So for example, if you check this part in a LDraw software, just by adding the part in a model (without rotation), you will notice that in fact, the part should be rotated 90° CCW. Of course there's a way to fix this problem if you keep the GIF unchanged, but it is more configuration work. Moreover, be advised that if you release the part with a wrong orientation and then fix the orientation in a following release, people who used your part with the first release will see it rotated, when they open their layout after updating to the second release. Since I'm sure you want to minimize this kind of trouble for the user, it's better to pay attention to the orientation from the begining. Bye. PS: yes, I'm sorry, it seems creating part (at least for the official library) requires to meet a lot of constraints. But in fact, take a look at how the LDraw parts are approved, this is also a painful process... Nice and quick! Thanks a lot!

Hi, That's nice. But I can see that the overhanging is only due to the hands of the minifigs. For this situation, I would recommand to move a little bit the minifigs inside the baseplate, or lower down a little bit their hand. Why? Because I think you should minimize the overhanging to the only necessary (like a roof or a track), because else you ask the user to do more work in sorting the parts in his layout. What I mean is: if the user put your set on his plan, then add a baseplate just next to it, the minifig hands will goes under the baseplate. Of course there is a way to solve this issue: right click and choose "send to back" for the baseplate. But the more unnecessary overhanging you have and the less work the user will have. Bye.

Hi, Thanks Missouri, I will add few comment here. Usually, the way I complete the XML file is to go to peeron page and search the set or part. Then I copy the peeron description and paste it to the XML file. Then I usually translate it in my language (but this is optionnal of course ). Since I'm already on the peeron page, I right click on the image and select "copy image URL") then I paste the URL in the XML file. The URL is not always necessary if the image on peeron is a LDRAW image. Then in this case BlueBrick can construct the URL itself according to the peeron naming convention. But if peeron doesn't have a LDRAW image, but a real picture taken from the real part, then it's better to add the URL in the XML file. A very easy and good way to check if your part need an URL, is to create a layout with all your part in and then export the part list in HTML. Then open the HTML file in your browser, if any image is missing, you know that you need to add an URL (or you made a mistake in the copy/paste). Bye.

Hi, Thanks for the duplo parts! I know the Duplo switch point does not exist yet in LDRAW, so I used a picture of a real part for my library. Your 12V switch panel makes me think that I could create another type of connection. The problem is right now, the number of connection is hard-coded in the software. I need to make this configurable in an XML file with a unlimited list of connection type with a configurable color. This is something I have in my todo list. But first, what I will do today is to move the description of the part inside the part xml. Bye.

Hi, Yes sure, there is no hurry. 3 to 4 weeks should be ok. I'm just worry about the integration of all your impressive work. But anyway, before the release, I need to finish the integration of the help file. Bye.

Thanks guys for redoing the gif!

Hi, That's a lot of great new sets. I would like to precise that for the 4.5V and 12V track, since the sleepers are shared between 2 parts, I usually cut the sleeper in the midlle. So in BlueBrick, the sleepers of the extremity of the set are 1x8 plates instead of 2x8. Else when you connect two rails, the blue rail goes under the white sleeper of the next rail. But this is just a detail. Also, I'm very amazed by all your work. I would be pleased if someone is interested to recreate all the set of Track Designer (they are all in the set folder of BlueBrick) because the gif are very ugly, and I need them in order to have a full compatibility with Track Designer. Thanks in advance.

Hi, I've just finished to rewrite the loading code of the XML files, such as the XML files can be more tolerant to mistakes (make all the fields optionnal). I also added the Author and ImageURL fields and implemented the feature for the part list HTML export. I will ask some of you to beta test it, but unfortunatly you won't be able to release your updated XML files until I release the version 1.5. But I can release 1.5 as soon as the beta testers approve it. Bye.

Hi and sorry for the late reply. I like to see the minifig on the sets, it makes the set more complete. Now I can understand that this is more work for the author of the part, so I don't want to force anyone. I will try to work on the authoring system this weekend. Bye.

Hi, I have finished a first version of the documentation on how to create parts for BlueBrick. Even if you guessed how to do, I think the chapter describing the XML file will be very usefull for you. I already sent it to missouri and he will forward it to some of you in order to get some feedback and make it more clear or understandable, then I will release and official version (hopefully in one week). Bye.

Hi everybody, This is my first post in eurobricks forum. I'm very pleased, impressed and honored to see all the part you did for BlueBrick. Like I said to missouri_bb63 in PM, I will write a full documentation on the XML format this weekend. As for how you organize yourself to share your parts, it's up to you. But there's also a new urgent task for me to do. It just come to my mind that all your work on the parts could not stay uncredited. So I will modify BlueBrick to add the author name in the XML file of the parts, such as you could add your credit to your work. Then if you want me to integrate your parts in an official release of BlueBrick, I would certainly need an email of authorisation for redistribuing your parts (and of course after I added the author feature), something similar to the LDRaw part author. This will be ready for the next 1.5 release that will contains also the help file and few bug fixes. aawsum, since you have created a lot of parts, you can contact me in PM, then I would be able to send you early beta version of the 1.5 version, in order to let you test the new authoring system. And of course missouri_bb63, we still stay in contact Bye.