Just thinking of an extension to the idea discussed here…

…if LDraw code could indeed be mapped onto a surface the way bitmap images currently are, could you conceivably map an entire part onto a surface?

You see where I'm going with this—could a sticker part be authored only in its flat form, and then, when needed to be placed on a non-planar surface, could that flat part file be automatically transformed (along with its proper thickness) and applied as part of the rendering process?

Is such behavior even desirable? Or maybe the better question is, would the programming effort required to implement this outweigh the need to author formed versions of all non-flat stickers?

Hi Roland
It would be nice if, when adding parts to the favorites list, there was an option to add the current part with the current color.
Theoretically, this should be possible, since the part number and color are stored in partbin.fav.
Theoretically and practically, it is possible to edit partbin.fav with a text editor, but you need to know the part numbers and color codes.
This is not a big problem for someone who is deeply involved in the subject, but I think it is for most users.
I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards Johann

Hello everyone

I would like to suggest a missing hairpiece. The hairpiece in question is 'Wavy Hair with Hole in Back (85607)', used in 2009 on 'Willie Scott' from the Indiana Jones theme. It was only used in one set, 'Shanghai Chase' (7682-1). Would that be possible? Thanks in advance.

https://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-wa...back-85607
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/cat...#T=C&C=103

For the primitive reference page at:
https://wiki.ldraw.org/wiki/Primitives_Reference
I would suggest including links to the actual primitives on the tracker so people could view them in 3D.

Get This Release

About the Update:
With this Update the repo is renamed. Otherwise, there are a few small changes/updates.
Please uninstall previous versions named "Convert To LDraw" to avoid potential issues.

Improvements/Changes(Optional):

• updated LDraw Colours and Brick Categories to include changes from the 2025-11 parts update
  
• updated some dependencies
  
• moved file settings to the left side #70
  
• size info: change from mm to cm when the object size is => 10cm
  

There are 3 primitives called axlecap used on some motors and gearboxes. I think they are an early atempt to create the beveled axleend. 
axlecap:  u9377, 172
axlecaph:  u9374
axlecaph2:  172, u9374, u9377

used in parts
motor 6216a-e
gearbox 170c01


IMHO, axlecap and axlecaph should be replaced.
I think axlecaph2 should stay as it is designed to allow a rubberband transmission.

Is it correct to replace the axlecap prim with a beveled axleend primitive, or are these axles correct with a more angular design?

https://library.ldraw.org/tracker

The above is the current Parts Tracker landing page. 

Is this page actually useful? If not, how can it be improved or should we change the landing page to the Activity Log?

Or is this for sets strictly designed by Lego group?

Hello,
do the dimensions of the flattendd stickers and formed stickers have to be the same?

Until a few weeks ago this seemed like a useless question especially for cylindrical stickers, but lately this is no longer the case!

in the regulation to create the stickers there is talk of measuring them in LDU, but it is not required that they are exactly the dimensions indicated in the description.
And this has been interpreted as such by me, by the auditors and by the administrators until recently.

For a few weeks I have seen that they are trying to make the stickers the exact size shown in the description.
They say: the difference is minimal, a few hundredths of a millimeter, you can't see it.
Agreed, perhaps, but the opposite is also true.
It depends on how you deal with the problem of creating a new set of stickers and how you want to act on the ones already made.

When I have to create a new set of stickers I do this: I check which pieces should be attached, I check if there are already any stickers with the same shape (the stickers help in this), I make the flat version in various subparts and then the formed one is born accordingly. This means that reviewers have until 6 or12 subparts to check for a single sticker, but once the subparts are OK you know that the two mainparts are perfect and you don't have to check that they match. The explanation that has been given, however, is not to reduce the number of subparts.

With what is being done now, however, it becomes practically mandatory to look for a flattened stickerback that is compatible and the formed one. Then you have to create the flattened and formed version which are not exactly the same, so the game of subparts cannot be done. Drawing the sticker formed in this way will cause a lot of imperfections due to rounding that will require additional condlines. Or do you decide not to consider them a priori?

The way you are trying to edit the official stickers is somewhat questionable. Add slices of a few tenths of LDU to the ends of the flattened version, leaving the formed sticker unchanged, when it would be enough to change once and for all the stickerback formed and the two subparts at the ends to have everything consistent as it has been done so far.
It's a lot of work that we didn't feel the need for until a couple of weeks ago, but if you really want to do it, do it well.
Also because otherwise a new sticker how should I do it? If I do it as I have done so far, you will surely tell me that those slices are too thin and do not fit.

So I repeat the questions.
Do flattened and formed stickers have to be the same length?
For me: Yes
Do you need to round the stickerbacks to the nominal size of the description?
For me: No

Rather, if you think that the flattened version can have reusable dimensions from a flat only sticker with nominal size, then let's create a second version (a, b, c...) in which in the description we say what to use that stickerback for stickerback020x038a.

Massimo

I am giving it a go to convert part 5608 from the BI model to something acceptable for the tracker, but am having a couple of issues.

In BI it is made up of two parts, the flask and its liquid which is fine so I made 2 sub-models and they are appropriately coloured and it basically now looks like the image in the lego parts list (once you set it to transparent of course.)



When ray-traced the liquid part doesn't really show up.  Plus it doesn't really look like the real world images of the part like this one:


The other flask u9180c01.dat on the tracker has the outside of the flask coloured instead so is that the way to go or am I missing something?

I've attached what I have made so far as a zip file, obviously the file names are just temporary.

Attached Files

  Flask.zip (Size: 9.17 KB / Downloads: 0)