Orion:
71014 is the now obsolete chrome version of this part. Therefore, should we resurrect the old part as an alias or delete this alias?
Max:
Is 71014 the Design ID or Element ID? If it is the design ID then we should make the old (obsolete) file an alias. If it's an element ID, then we can delete this part and have nothing to do with the other one, as we don't support physical colour parts anymore.
I identified what is a potential problem with texture images and the requirements of the CC BY license: there is no current mechanism to track authors and modifications to these images. While we haven't had an image recycled to the library for a fix, I feel it is only a matter of time before this happens. The PT tracks these events internally and this data is saved between releases but there is no method for someone who downloads the library to know who has authored an image and what its license is. A solution needs to be found.
I have a few options I can think of:
1. A "Texture Attribution" document included with the library that lists the filename, author, modification authors (if there are any), and license for each image.
Pros: Does not require any modifications to the PT software.
Cons: Labor intensive for the Parts Admin.
Note: I have made such a document and will be including it with the library starting the May release.
2. Add this information to the PNG meta data
Pros: info lives in the files
Cons: Very technically challenging, data not available in an intuitive way, not sure if this meets the intent of CC BY, would have to research.
3. Have a parallel dat file for each png file or, conversely, include texture mod HISTORY in the parent file
Pros: Easy to implement, uses the standard header.
Cons: Adds complexity to the library.
I have this big model of 12000+ bricks I am working on.
Somewhere on the way, I lost some work :-( and had to redo a few things here and there.
Before the loss of work, however, the model was 99% complete and I was able to restore the lost file and thus its BOM.
Finishing the model, there are some changes and additions here and there and I kind of lost what bricks went missing, got replaced, and are not used anymore.
So, my question: Is there a clever way to compare 2 files to see the difference in the BOM?
Inspired by the (very similar) threads here and here by kevlamar, I wrote a tiny viewer that displays a model and checks which triangle is currently shown and which triangle is shown since loading/reset. This is done to calcualte some statistics and to give some sense of how many triangles are really used ("#E" in screenshots) and how many could be removed ("#T-#E").
For the 10218 model, I would assume one could remove about 80% of the triangles without loosing significant detail even if the user is allowed to rotate freely. Screenshot of the rendered original model (934441 triangles):
Screenshot of the 148853 triangles identified in some previous rotations (ok, very similar, but not overwhelming for the same perspective):
Screenshot of the 785588 removed triangles (mostly studs and face-to-face-triangles):
Looking at the 8868 Airtech Claw Rig, about 50% of the triangles are really shown sometimes (587814 of 1104183 after trying really many camera positions):
Looking at a tiny 3x3 brick wall, as expected the studs in the lower two rows can be removed and the inner boxes of the upper two rows can be removed, resulting in about 60% savings:
Since we had only 5 confirmed nominees, no election was necessary.
Therefore, the 2022/2023 LDraw.org Steering Committee [1] is:
Gerald Lasser
Philippe Hurbain
Max Martin Richter
Orion Pobursky
Willy Tschager
[1] Try not to confuse the LDraw.org Steering Committee (SteerCo) with the LDraw.org Standards Board (LSB). The Steering Committee sets the course for the LDraw Organization while the Standards Board deals with the LDraw File Format.
Congratulations to the reconfirmed and new members!
Willy Tschager
On behalf of the LDraw.org Steering Committee
I just updated the MLCad.ini file accordingly to the latest LDraw.org parts update 2022-02. The .ini file defines (among other things) the parts available in MLCad's, LEOCad's and Bricksmith's minifigure generator.
The attached script (just change .txt to .lua) lets you write words in a Duplo or Lego font.
Just change the part and factor variables in addLetter to get the different versions. For brevity, the letters are defined using positions by studs and brick height and are multiplied by the factor to get coordinates. As such, they will work for any brick that is 2 studs wide with height 1.
Code:
function addLetter(color, studOffset, letter)
-- Duplo
-- local part = '3437.dat'
-- local factor = ldc.vector(40, -48, 40)
-- Lego
local part = '3003.dat'
local factor = ldc.vector(20, -24, 20)
Question: Is it possible to add a group in an an LDCad script? I'd like to add the parts in each letter to a group, and then add a group for the entire word. The best example I have seen is in the Add Wall example script, but that just adds the new parts to the selection.
