| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 5,482
» Latest member: J. Eason
» Forum threads: 6,282
» Forum posts: 52,435
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 191 online users. » 1 Member(s) | 186 Guest(s) Applebot, Bing, Google, Internet Archive, Rene Rechthaler
|
| Latest Threads |
Existing Part Edit Reques...
Forum: Parts Authoring
Last Post: Rene Rechthaler
5 minutes ago
» Replies: 150
» Views: 372,080
|
I took a better photo of ...
Forum: Parts Authoring
Last Post: Peter Grass
5 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 38
|
Request: Mark part as obs...
Forum: Parts Authoring
Last Post: Orion Pobursky
Today, 0:55
» Replies: 3
» Views: 141
|
LDConfig with Bricklink S...
Forum: LDraw File Processing and Conversion
Last Post: Hageta
Yesterday, 10:13
» Replies: 0
» Views: 110
|
Certain parts are returni...
Forum: Parts Tracker Discussion
Last Post: Orion Pobursky
Yesterday, 2:41
» Replies: 1
» Views: 234
|
LDraw.org 2025-11 Parts U...
Forum: LDraw.org Announcements
Last Post: Orion Pobursky
Yesterday, 2:40
» Replies: 2
» Views: 261
|
LDraw.org 2025-10 Parts U...
Forum: LDraw.org Announcements
Last Post: Sylvain Sauvage
2025-12-01, 18:46
» Replies: 4
» Views: 1,132
|
40775 - Mini Knight's Cas...
Forum: Official Models
Last Post: Magnus Forsberg
2025-11-30, 14:40
» Replies: 0
» Views: 420
|
LEGO Icons 2025
Forum: Official Models
Last Post: N. W. Perry
2025-11-30, 13:34
» Replies: 3
» Views: 4,342
|
Here are the new raw part...
Forum: Part Requests
Last Post: Orion Pobursky
2025-11-28, 22:09
» Replies: 2
» Views: 291
|
|
|
| Proposal: Fast Track Parts Tracker Parts |
|
Posted by: Orion Pobursky - 2013-03-24, 7:36 - Forum: Standards Board
- Replies (2)
|
 |
A number of people have mentioned that minor edits should be fast tracked on the PT. I agree. Here's my proposal:
Code: The Parts Tracker (PT) Admin may, at his discretion, fast track a part on the
Parts Tracker if it is considered by him to be a minor edit. The term "fast track"
is defined to mean any system where a part is required to have less votes
than normal. This may include unilateral approval by the PT Admin. In all cases
the PT Admin must approve the part. All fast tracked parts must appear on the
PT until the next regular update.
Examples of minor edits (note this list is not all inclusive):
- Any header modification including part renaming
- Creation of Moved To and Aliases
- Modification for greater decimal precision
- BFC certification
- Elimination of errors such as bowtie quads, colinear points, or T-Junctions
Thoughts?
|
|
|
| Point matching Re: Question about edges |
|
Posted by: Tim Gould - 2013-03-23, 22:17 - Forum: Parts Authoring
- Replies (23)
|
 |
I'm going to split this off as a new thread since the old one is unwieldy...
When we develop a list of points (via check and snap), there will be (hopefully only a few) remaining points that have not been snapped to each other and remain with only _one_ tri or quad accessing them. We can exploit this as these points must be: - Part of a t-junction
- A point that has not been snapped properly
- An edge point (but this should be illegal in an LDraw part)
There is absolutely no other reason for a point not the be shared amongst at least two tris/quads. We can store the number of facet prims accessing the point via a simple count on the list of points.
So here's the deal:
Code: SnapPoints
foreach Point not in TwoTris/Quads
# Check if the point is part of a t-junciton
If CheckForTJunction then SplitTJunction
# Check for nearby points with a larger (eg. 0.05) tolerance
DoNearbyCheck(TOLBIG)
SnapToPoints
endfor
If, at the end of this code, there are points that are still not shared then the part can probably be flagged as bad.
Tim
|
|
|
| 3 decimals is not a lot of precision for rotation matrices |
|
Posted by: Ben Supnik - 2013-03-23, 19:48 - Forum: Parts Authoring
- Replies (11)
|
 |
Hi Y'all,
Roland and I have been tossing around part numbers, looking at smoothing results. One thing that surprised me is that we needed a rather large 0.05 LDU error margin to 'snap' the segments of the 6x6 webbed dishes together. (The part is built via 8 sub-sections rotated 45 degrees.) 0.05 seems like a 'big' error because part authors can specify vertices to the 0.001.
Today I cracked open the part and took a look at the numbers, and the large error margin now makes sense.
The fundamental problem is absolute error amplification: if the error on a matrix ratio is 1/1000 (0.001 precision) then the actual error in the position of a rotated part is 0.001 * R where R is the approximate radius of rotation. In other words, a part that extends 60 LDU from its center will have an absolute error of 60/1000 (0.06) after rotation. (In fact, the real results are up to 3x worse because error accumulation is additive and we add the X, Y, and Z components of the matrix).
The actual numbers of the 6x6 dish show that the worst case error could have been much worse than this actual part. The bottom line is: 0.001 just isn't _that_ precise for a rotation component that's going to be used for a moderately big part. :-(
This matters because the rounding tolerance for welding rotated part segments for smoothing defines the smallest 3-d detail an author can make without having their triangles collapsed.
I realize that we have a gajillion parts and my going "we should do X" isn't going to actually change the library, but I wonder if this perspective should result in some kind of updated practices for authoring.
Naively, I would suggest two possible changes...
1. We could allow higher precision for matrices. For example, the part is using 0.707 for a 45-degree rotation. If I go into the text file and replace it with 0.707106781186548 I can cut my error margin down by 4x. (Clearly BrickSmith isn't using all of 0.707106781186548 - I just typed a big long number into the text file...BrickSmith is using 32-bit float.)
2. Authors could avoid angle rotations that aren't 90 degree increments. At 90 degrees, the rotation matrix can be _exactly_ represented - all rotational coefficients are 0, 1, or -1. :-) So the 'lock-up' of vertices around 90 degree rotations should be pretty good - certainly in the same ballpark as the geometry itself.
This would mean 'bigger' parts - 90 degree swathes of dish instead of 45 degrees, but the precision would be a lot better.
Cheers
Ben
|
|
|
| [0.2.1] LDForge |
|
Posted by: Santeri Piippo - 2013-03-22, 18:48 - Forum: Parts Author Tools
- Replies (97)
|
 |
Version 0.2.1 of LDForge is now out, fixing a bug causing LDForge to skip every 300th line of a given file. See release document and downloads here
LDForge is released under GPLv3 and CC-BY-SA (for icons). Repository: here, for bleeding-edge stuff.
Some things to note:- BFC red/green view, albeit present, isn't always right; it assumes everything is CCW and it fails to catch INVERTNEXT in subfiles. Also it has to draw everything twice so there's a bit of a performance hit.
- The camera suffers of gimbal lock. I'm going to try address this for future versions.
So in some 2010 I had posted some ideas about this thing. Even though I've been quite wholly inactive, I've had this on the back burner for the past year. I've been learning a lot of programming things and I guess I'm a more mature person today.
Basically I've rewritten the entire thing, instead of Tcl, this thing is being written in C++/Qt/OpenGL. The only stuff I've kept were some OpenGL things I ported from the old renderer to make this actually capable of drawing things. While MLCAD had 4 camera windows, this thing has one single one with 7 modes which can be quickly changed to and from.
Features:- List view ala MLCAD with multi-selection. One object per line, one line per object. Items not colored main or edge color (16/24) have their color reflected in the list view for identifying.
- Parse error recovery, if a line/object cannot be parsed properly it will be displayed as an errorneous object. This object can be selected and its contents edited and have it reparsed, so you can fix these errors within LDForge.
- 6 camera modes plus a free-angle one.
- Drawing mode that allows you to literally draw polygons and lines into the screen.
- Object hiding
- Select by color or type
- Quick edge-lining, takes any number of polygons and creates edgelines around them
- Ability to edit object's LDraw code directly
- Inlining, plus deep inlining which grinds down to polygons only
- Auto-coloring (sets color to the first found unused color), uncoloring (sets colors to main/edge color based on type)
- Coordinate rounding, inverting, coordinate replacing, flipping, quad splitting
- Screenshotting
- Vertex object, generic radial primitive object
- LDConfig.ldr parsing for color information
- Ability to launch Philo's utilities and automatically merge in output
- BFC red/green view (incomplete)
- Wireframe mode, axis drawing
- Image overlays for getting part data from pictures
|
|
|
| Some missing part |
|
Posted by: Calogero Lombo - 2013-03-18, 13:08 - Forum: Part Requests
- Replies (2)
|
 |
Hi,
first thank you for your work.
After a lot of years of utilization, I developed the dream of to do as many as possible of official sets with the correct parts.
I know that this dream is quite impossible and that there is similar part that can be used, but I want to try to achieve my dream.
With humility, I ask if there is someone with spare time to create some of the following parts to help me (I have tried with a conversion from LDD but the result is visually good, but in reality I do not succeed to optimize the parts so to use them properly).
Best regard and still many thanks for the part made in this year
CL
The list:
6014b Wheel 11.5mm D. x 12mm, Hole Notched for Wheels Holder Pin (the actual version is very different)
58088 Wheel Cover 7 Spoke with Axle Hole (for the set 8145 Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano)
60032 Window 1 x 2 x 2 Plane, Single Hole Top and Bottom for Glass (for set 4997 Transport Ferry)
30625 Hinge Panel 1 x 4 x 3 2/3 with 6 holes, 2 studs on top, Locking 2 Fingers
3245c Brick 1 x 2 x 2 with Inside Stud Holder
|
|
|
| whitespace deals.. 0// |
|
Posted by: Santeri Piippo - 2013-03-15, 20:34 - Forum: LDraw File Processing and Conversion
- Replies (2)
|
 |
So I was working on my little parts authoring tool (ldforge) again and ran into a little problemo: is there required to be a whitespace after the numeric code for comments? Is a line like "0// edge lines" valid or are they considered errorneous?
I would assume it's illegal but assuming is bad, so yeah. The specification doesn't seem to mention anything about this, maybe I am blind as usual?
|
|
|
|