Following review of this part, Magnus asked for my method to calculate ring approximations... as it maybe helpful for many people, I answer here...

Original pattern used a lot of thing rings to get "precise" dimensions, though this is mostly useless since measurements on prints (and prints themselves!) are pretty approximative.

• First ring: inner diameter is 7 (14/2), desired thickness is 0.75.  7/0.75=9.3333. Round to nearest integer, we get a ring9. To fit inner diameter, thickness must be 7/9=0.777777777. Close enough to the 0.75 target.
  
• Second ring: Inner diameter is 7.77777777 (0.777777777*(9+1)). Previous pattern outer diameter is 37*.25=9.25. Desired thickness is thus 9.25-7.77777777=1.47222222. Second ring will be obtained as int(7.77777777777/1.47222222222) -> ring5. To fit inner diameter, thickness must be 7.77777777/5=1.5555555. A bit further than the 1.47 target, but good enough...
  
• And third ring: needed thickness is 0.91666666, we get int(9.3333333333/0.9166666666)=10, with a thickness of 0.93333333333
  

I couldn't find this on the spec so I thought I'd ask here and maybe it could be updated to make it clear.

Are the colors listed in LDConfig.ldr in linear or sRGB color space? What about alpha?

Does the same apply to the PNGs in the TEXMAP extension?

Hi, it's my first post 
i am actually try to contact webmaster//LDraw developper to talk about website critical vulnerability that i found during my project search.

Thx to contact me or at least give me username of appropriate user

BTW is there any discord/slack/chat server that ldraw community used to keep in touch?

PS: send email on webmaster[at]ldraw[dot]org, yesterday

My question pertains to patterned parts/stickers. Once you add pattern to the curved part, even if the original curvature of the sticker could have been represented with a primitive the new, color specific elements simply cannot.

At what angular resolution should the resulting sticker/part be exported at using nothing but a poly-mesh of triangles?

Also, for curved stickers/patterns is the preferred method to create ldraw mesh for them or is it better to use the PNG map instead?

Next question: what should be the smallest triangle face length on a patterned part or is there a general guideline as to the number of vertexes a part should have?

Last question:
How do you handle a part with sides that are curved primitives (semi circles) but the patterned curved side being defined using only triangles? 22.5 degree seems rather low for the curved part but leaving the sides as primitives is more ideal, however the rendered curved patterned part (see the Sian brake calipers) must match up to it and if it's done at a higher resolution things look weird in LDCad bit if it's rendered at only 22.5 degree faces it looks poor when rendered in Stud.io.

I have created a few patterned pieces already but I want to make sure they're matching guideline standards before I even make an attempt at submitting them.

   

there's this robot arm made by Magnus Forsberg that refuses to import correctly into stud.io's part designer program correctly, whenever I import it, it says "Parts Not Found: s/62691s01.dat", and it only loads the front and the little arm connector piece, I tried fixing it myself but it's so frustrating, so i decided to give in and ask the Ldraw forums for help, also make sure to tell me if this happened to anyone else and if it happens on any other Lego building program, I want to make a cyborg army but it's not the same without the robot arm that has, like, a weapon or stud or something connected on it.
also here's the link to the part I'm having trouble with: https://www.ldraw.org/parts/official-par...rtid=62691
oh and btw, i got the version of the arm off these torsos, https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c.../63208.dat and https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c...208p01.dat, but it ended up unable to be colored, as only the stud connector could be colored, and i have no idea how to make the whole thing able to be colored in Stud.io.

Hello, I was just trying to build a Lego Blimp/Zeppelin for Lego Ideas in Stud.io, but sadly none of the parts for the actual envelope of the blimp/zeppelin seem to exist.  I did get the gondola completed as I intended, but sadly without the actual balloon, (or envelope as it's know to those who know airships), I can't make the upload.  I tried asking the folks at Bricklink to help with making the envelope, but sadly they couldn't seem to find a 3d model of said balloon.  So, anybody here think they can help with that?  Please?  It'd be really appreciated if somebody here could, especially if you could make all three parts, the blimp container assembly (72490c01), the blimp container body (72490a), and the blimp container tail (72490b) both with and without their stickers, (especially since I plan on using a plain blimp container body with the tail fin stickers on the blimp container tail on my Lego Ideas project, so having the two ends separate and the complete assembly with and without stickers would be very helpful).  So, yeah, just thought I'd ask.  Rockatoa, Brickticks out!

I've done a string and modified its path to suit my needs (top part). Is there any way to add a donor so that the path would look like the braided string (bottom part)? 

I have tried to add LS61.dat or 572b.dat but I get funny results with the donor rotate 90º.



I've added the file for reference.

example.mpd

This is mainly idle curiosity, since I think I can guess at the answer and the reasons behind it, but…

…has any serious thought ever been given to authoring the 1:87 model vehicles that were integral to the Town Plan system in the 50s and 60s? Or alternatively, was a conscious decision made not to do so?

Obviously these would be tricky since many of us probably don't have real-world examples on hand to work from, and they'd all be highly customized parts, not well represented by existing primitives. Also, as with many early parts, it's hard to pin down one "authentic" version of each of these, since color combinations and other details tended to vary considerably. Finally, with no connection points, they don't really function as system parts, and have no real utility within a model other than for their own sake.

On the other hand, in their day they were considered very much "in-system", as the scale of the whole Town Plan/System i leg era was built around them. And if there were ever a goal of having accurate LDraw representations of all official sets, these would be necessary to have for a fair number of those models.

Anyway, it's certainly not something I'm proposing to tackle or anything—just wondering aloud, as I say. :-)

I've submitted the missing part (Signpost cantilever with Shell pattern) in set 601 as u454p01.
https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-22660-po...l#pid39984
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c...454p01.dat

I have some questions about this part and would like the community members' opinions.
1) This part is listed as x454pb01 in Bricklink and upn0252pr0001 in Rebrickable.
On the other hand, there are two parts with different parent part number (bb0107 in Bricklink and 107 in Rebrickable) while they appear to be the same brick shape with this part.
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/cat...5D#T=C&C=1
https://rebrickable.com/parts/107/road-s...ved-plain/

https://rebrickable.com/parts/107pr0001/...ell-print/
https://rebrickable.com/parts/107pr0002/...ice-print/

Should we unify the parent part number for these three as "107"?

2) I've used part 764 as the substitute of this part u454pb01,
but I couldn't find any real part of 764 in external databases (Bricklink, Rebrickable and Peeron).
There are two possibilities: "I've overlooked the existence of 764" or "The part 764 is only a ghost".
https://www.ldraw.org/parts/official-par...partid=764

Hi, I just ran into a funny PT error:

I did a part review and received the crazy error message: "The letter 'O' is not allowed in part reviews!"

It took me some time to find out that I accidently had used an accent key on my keyboard and that my review
contained the letter Í (or Ì, I forgot) somewhere else. So the "O" was not the problem, but the accented "I".
Something is wrong with the error message display