freakwave

That'S the thing they could have really really addressed... However, I guess this one needs to be mine

Thanks!

Hi, that is really a nice tool, great work! we had a discussion at LDraw itself to add something like this to the site, but so far the time was missing to implement it. Could you adapt it to do the same with unofficial parts? e.g.: https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?s=83496 Thanks!

they do very well:

As I had also the opportunity to review this for a German site, I could take a look at those new gears, and IMHO, those have an vast advantage over the beveld ones, as their interlocking is much better/deeper. So you won't experience slip under heavy load as the teeth of the beveled gears only go half that deep, compared to the new ones.

Great Idea!

That was also my first thought when I got these ramps! great style for roofs!

Don't you think those are smaller/shorter? just put the two pictures on top of each other, the new one is definately shorter and the arch has a smaller raduis

You are always welcome to propose a better solution. Why is the solution inefficient? It looks to be the most efficient at the moment, and most importantly it solves the issue LDCad pretty quickly.

Well, I would not call corporations democracies anyway... Bricklink should be owned by a trust, or by its users

DO you mean the lack of templates in LDPC?

DEfinately owuld follow Philo's approach and move to LDCad!

Actually, the three parts are all waiting for the Admin Certification, can check in the LDraw Forum, respectivley, @Philo do you know a reason why they haven't been in a part release till now.

Makoy, do you mind posting a hi-res picture of the new cone piece? I would like to construct it for the LDraw library and I need to see the underside. Thansk

I have a crawler from a Neo Classic Space MOC and I could not resist putting the might Saturn V on top of it... ...despite being more then three time heavier than the rocket it was designed to transport, it works!

First of all, thanks for sending me the files. Interesting behavior... ...and even more interesting after doing some modifications... In a nutshell: LPUB4 does not like multiple "." (dots) in a filename... When I remove them from the sub4.1.ldr and sub4.2.ldr I can add the Call-Outs Now the interesting part: After adding the Call-Out, I can add the "." back into the filenames. It works, it opens in LPUB fine. However adding the next Call-Out crashes it again. Removing the second "." in the sub-files, everything is working again.

I guess there must have been something wrong in the mpd file, i.e. a 0 FILE or NOFILE missing. Would you mind PMming me the file? Thanks

Looks like a typo, should probably be 57539, at least this is in the Inventory :-)

You probably started LDView before to display only wireframe. Do the following: Start LDView and adjust the redering to your liking, especially turn off the wireframe display in the preferences, respectively in the menu bar. Exit LDView and have a look what LPub does not. Adidtionally you might clear the LPub image cache to be sure no leftovers are present. That should help you

I would really like to get a box like this :-)

In their FAQ Lego is not exactly straight forward and somehow contradicting. The new plugs shall come as well for PF V2 and on the other hand they write "Education only". Time will tell. As written above the three systems, WeDo V1, WeDo V2 and PF(exist) use different voltages, 5V (off USB), 3V - 3,7V and 9V I cannot imagine that we will see 3V gear coming to Technic, may be as a new Micro-Motor but not for M, L and XL. Here power is needed and power is P = U x I. Having less voltage would require more current and thus draining the batteries really quickly. Just listen to the compressors of the AROCS and the Unimog... Imagine them on 3V... -> My guess: If there will be a new PF V2 it will still be 9V for Technic applications. This leads indirectly to a guess on the 6 wires that we see. Two speculations here, as four wires would be fine for thoese applicatiosn as we see it in Mindstorms. A) either they split the input and output. i.e. 2 wires supply, 2 wires control and 2 wires Input. B) or they use two supplies, 2 wires 9V, 2 wires 3V and 2 wires control. What is definitely a downside is the inability of stacking those connectors. For the Education purposed this is not really relevant but in Technic MOCs we still want to connect two motors to one output for whatever reason. A plus is the advent of Bluetooth in PF, a new PF Receiver (not the Smarthub) will be a very nice addition. I would expect four ports and and may be up to four controllers to be controller by one "remote" now the new remote. Will there be another dedicated remote? In my view there needs to be. Even if every kid now has a mobile phone, a stand alone remote would make sense.

May be the BWE comes in a scale like the 8288?

I like the modularity when you set it up at the beginning.

Are you member of a LUG? The balls are on the list of possible items to be ordered via LUGBULK. Definately a better deal than Bricklink and as the name suggests, you can order in large quantities...

Thanks for the review! Going through, I have a bit of an ambivalent feeling about this model. Do you own both? In my opinion the use of the round parts give a better feeling of the real thing and show a better surface (shadows). However the entrances are definitely better in the new set, those match very good the reality. The tower itself looks a bit too flat not providing the uneven surface of the vertical surfaces of the tower. The proportions look good, however the wings of the building seem a bit too wide (by scale) Nevertheless I will get it :-) and finally, do the introductions in the instruction differ between the both models?