Would this be the forum to handle pattern code requests? Or is it preferable to just submit parts on our own under the next available, logical code?

Specifically I'd propose to submit two patterns:
26603p06 - Tile 2 x 3 with Dark Tan Squares pattern
4162p1p - Tile 1 x 8 with "Singapore" pattern

Magnus has submitted the next batch of axle fixes. I'd like to have these done for the May update.
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptreviewsu...xleholefix

I've created a new PT summary group called PT Admin Focus:
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptreviewsu...?f=pafocus
These are random parts (usually subparts) that are holding up a whole block of otherwise certifiable parts.
I'll reset this list every parts update.

Hi,

We would love a Male and female lion if possible please. Is anyone able to kindly help with creating a digital file for them please. 

https://brickset.com/parts/6340155/lion-no-3

https://brickset.com/parts/6215575/big-cat-no-2


Thank you.


Admin EDIT: Added Part in the Title

(background: Trying to write an LDCad script that will comment out all type 1 lines that are hidden by buffer exchange, so the model can be viewed in e.g. LDView…)

Hmm, so the logic of buffer exchange is a little trickier than I thought. It's easy enough when there's just one block of store/retrieve statements—just hide everything between the first store and the last retrieve. But when there are multiple hidden blocks with some visible lines in between them, it's harder.

I might need a hint. :-)

As far as I'm aware, there is no way to mark surfaces on parts as "grainy", an effect most commonly known from 2x2 slope bricks. I think it would be good to have such thing, especially for being able to distinguish some possible clean and grainy variants (there are some iirc, but I might be wrong)

Hey there!

I'm Violet, otherwise known as vootcaboot or (sometimes) weedvampires. I currently manage a number of packs of models for Bricklink Stud.io on behalf of the Bionicle community, mainly involving fan-created models originally designed for 3d printing, but I was also the last to update a pack of official Lego models for Bionicle and other constraction themes known as the Biopack. However, the problem is the fact that, well... Stud.io is a mess! I know that LDraw and Lego CAD, in general, has a long history of being janky, but this makes it difficult to work with models... especially seeing as I am not a modeler, only someone who learned how to use PartDesigner and had enough patience to do the painstaking work of aligning connections and making sure phantom collisions don't happen. So, in my introduction to this forum, I'd like to ask a couple of questions.

1. Are there any better alternatives to creating parts over PartDesigner? Namely, PartDesigner has issues when processing models of very high face counts, and it seems to attempt to apply some sort of geometry modifier on import, which when combined with what I presume to be similar modifiers passed upon starting a photorealistic render, results in models looking... iffy, to say the least.
   
2. Is there a relatively simple way for modelers in Blender, Fusion360, and other programs who are accustomed to making parts for 3d printing to apply primitives to things like axles, studs, and pin holes? A big problem when working with these models is the lack of consistency between the connection points of parts, so this would definitely be a huge step forward if a (relatively) painless solution exists.
   
3. Since a majority of our community uses Stud.io for building and rendering their Bionicle MOCs due to ease of use, is there anything you have learned about Stud.io that we may have not?
   

Hi,
quick question:
What is more reasonable for large model?
To change the scale factor or to zoom out with the camera?

Until now I have always scaled, but somehow Lpub3D ticks around when I use the "Look at" option.
(Model is displayed very small)
Could this be due to the scaling of the model?

Regards Johann

P.S.: I am using LPub3D 2.4.3r0 mobile version

In your opinion it would not be better to omit the presence of the groove in all the tiles and indicate only the possible lack.

I know that it is contrary to the principle of expressing what is there and not what is missing, but in this case it seems to me that we would have more advantages than anything else:
  in alphabetical order the first part of a tile family would be the neutral version (as is now the case for 1x3 tiles, 1x6 tiles and 1x8 tiles, but not for 1x2 tiles, 1x4 tiles and 2x2 tiles)
  the descriptions would be shorter and more homogeneous (already now, most of the 1x4 and 2x2 patterned tiles do not give indications of the presence or absence of the groove)
  the new parts are already with the groove, only very first versions were devoid of it (and there are many more patterned or stickered parts based on the grooved versions than on the others).

May I get some feedback on the part?
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c.../47311.dat