A while back I posted about a little curiosity I had spotted while modelling a new part. It was not much of an issue there, but today I discovered a part where the problem is much greater.

The problem is summarised as follows:

1) We model studless technic connections (eg. liftarms, pin connectors) at 18LDU wide, which is slightly too small for the real ones

2) We model technic holes at 10LDU from the top of a brick, which is slightly too low (9LDU is closer). This difference is actually large enough that connections from a system brick like 87087 to a technic brick like 6541 are forbidden in official models.

3) When studless technic connections are merged with bricks these two problems combine to make LDraw parts not match flush at the top, while real parts will be flush.

There are more parts appearing like 85943 and it might be worth coming up with a standard workaround for these parts.

In the case of 85943 it was modelled with 20LDU liftarms which I think is not ideal. Better, IMO, would be to slope down over about 5LDU at the join and then leave the rest at the 18LDU diameter.

Thoughts?

Tim

I've realised that there's a few parts that are held up by only minor changes suggested by reviewers. Since we're often open to re-editing by secondary authors link to any of these here and hopefully someone whose vote won't be lost can do something about it. eg. stud41fw.

I've noticed others in the past and made the edits but this way we can keep track of more.

Tim


PS. I'm not sure if this should remain sticky but I think for now it can be.

I would prefer not to mix LDraw and politics, but in this case, a piece of legislation threatens the very thing that holds our community together... the internet.

If SOPA and the PROTECT IP Act are passed, it would allow a third party to accuse LDraw.org of hosting copyrighted material, which would cause the entire site to be "taken down" for American users (the DNS entry for ldraw.org would no-longer resolve to where the site is hosted).

We are particularly susceptible to these bills because we are dealing with a product (LEGO) whose rights do not inherently belong to us. Note that it would not necessarily need to be The Lego Group that would initiate the takedown. Something as simple as posting an image of a MOC made by somebody else would be enough to (under the proposed legislation) warrant a takedown of the entire site!

Imagine Peeron being taken down. Imagine Brickshelf being taken down. Imagine BrickLink being taken down. Imagine Lugnet being taken down. Imagine LDraw being taken down. That is what could and most likely would happen if these bills get passed. We certainly want to avoid that!

At first glance, the bills might seem to be a good thing, claiming to address the issue of piracy and copyright infringement, this is really just the veil under which they attempt to censor the internet in the United States. I am completely morally opposed to piracy, and would support legislation which actually addresses the issue properly, however the side-effects of these bills are much too devastating.

If these bills are passed, they would most certainly have very profound adverse effects on the LDraw community (as well as other AFOL communities), which is why I urge all US citizens to take action against this legislation. If these bills get passed in the United States... similar legislation in Europe (and other places) would not be far away.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has provided a convenient page which goes into detail about the implications of the bill, as well as provides a very simple way for you to contact your representative with a minimal amount of effort (it takes less than 60 seconds). Please... if you like LDraw, and you want it to continue to exist without any legal interference, take action and oppose this legislation!

Just hilarious - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLnBM_xuRg4

more: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_qu...mini+movie

Great music, too... LEGO has done a good job here.

Happy rendering!

Mike Gallagher has found an awesome technique to create your own roads
when baseplates are not enough.

This opens a universe of possibilities.
Just wanted to share this with you.

Of course he uses LDRAW.

http://gallaghersart.com/forums/viewthread/9/

http://gallaghersart.com/forums/viewthread/11/

Entirely a personal preference thing, but I find it somewhat bothersome that what looks like emphasis is sometimes a link and vice versa.

Might I suggest making links a different color than normal text, even if just slightly so as a dark grey or something keeping with the style so far. I don't think I would go all-out and make them blue, just something (perhaps minimal) to distinguish them.

It's entirely a personal preference/stylistic thing, but functionality wise I believe a visitor should be able to tell whether or not something is a link without mouseovering it.

The 2011-02 LDraw parts update has been now been released.

This update includes 786 files in the core library, including 474 new parts. A further 19 parts have been redeveloped by authors who have affirmed the Contributor Agreement, replacing files that were not redistributable. Only five "non-CA" files remain in the library and every effort is being made to replace those in the next update.

This is a big step in reducing the backlog on the Parts Tracker and brings the number of files to its lowest level since September 2006. Thanks are due to everyone who created or corrected parts for this release and to those who have reviewed files in order to make this release happen.

You can preview the new parts in 2011-02 and download the update by going to the updates page.

The 160 certified files currently on the LDraw Parts Tracker were held back from this update in keeping with our normal practice of not releasing new primitives or subparts until they are needed for an official part file. Many of the further 337 files waiting for admin review should be included in the next release.

Hello all,

I've been working on LDCad 1.1's 'ortho' mode implementation the last couple of weeks, and I think I now have a solid basic handling running.

But because I personally don't use Ortho much (hence the perspective only view in 1.0) I would love to get some feedback from the people who do prefer the ortho views over a single 3D one.

The current implementation allows for 24! different ortho views using the compass.

A short (8MB) avi can be viewed to get the picture.

http://www.melkert.net/action/download/orthoTest.avi

Basically the ortho view will follow the current editing plane (xy, yz, xz) but on top of that allows for 8 different orientations per plane. It also takes in account the grid orientation (so if you have tilled grid, the ortho views will also tilt.).

The 't', 's', 'f' keys will also work but they restore the last orientation for the plane used in the compass.

In practice you probably set the view only once per window. But by using the compass you could alternatively use a single view for more space convenience.

Any feed back is welcome, cause I'm at the point at which changes can be made 'easily'.

Crossposting from Lugnet.com/Cad:

• Implemented basic undo functionality (might be a bit slow, but should work)
  
• Improvements for network installation or installation under Windows Vista and above.
  MLCad now doesn't write to its installation path anymore.
  
• Save pictures in more formats, now supporting Bitmap, Jpeg, Gif, Tiff and Png.
  
• Serveral bug-fixes
  

This is something I've been thinking about for some time, and now that there's a new Part Update looming and excitement in the air, it's been on my mind even more.

It would be REALLY nice if there was some kind of release schedule for the Part Updates. I can think of a couple good reasons for this: Firstly, users would know when to expect new releases. Instead of just checking in periodically to see if there's been a new update, they'd have solid date(s) for when to look for them. Additionally, I do think this would actually improve some of the throughput from the PT. By introducing deadlines, you create a period of "crunch time" where part creators work faster/harder than they normally would in order to get the most possible parts released.

Consider the recent stickied post "Parts for Urgent Review" and the response that has gotten and the increase in parts that'll now be available for the next update. That thread essentially created a crunch time by saying, "A part release is coming VERY SOON, so you'd better ready your parts." And what happened? People started working much faster and harder than usual in order to get as many parts as possible into the next update. Now imagine that happened everytime there was a release. Would that be such a bad thing?

Personally, I think a 2-updates-per-year schedule is probably ideal, although I do think a strong case could be made for 3 updates as well (I think 4 may be a bit excessive and demanding, but maybe I'm wrong). Last year saw 3 updates spread evenly apart, and so far this year, we've had one update with presumably one more to be released before/around the end of the year.

So, how would this work? Let's say a 2 UPY schedule was agreed upon. Furthermore, it was agreed upon that the updates would be released at the ends (30th or 31st) of June and Decemember. Now, there would likely end up being several deadlines involved.

For example, for the June release, you might have:
June 15th - Deadline for Part Certification.
June 27th - Deadline for Part Review.
June 30th - Update is Officially Released.

So part makers and reviewers would have until the 15th to get their parts certified for the next update, the admin would then have approximately two weeks to review as many parts as he/she can for the update. Then, those who prepare the release (is this also the Admin?), would have a couple days to make any last preperations needed, get everything in line, and publish the release. Obviously, these dates may need to be adjusted, but I think you get a sense of the general process involved.


Would the LSC and/or Steering Commitee (I can never keep track of what each of these does), in conjunction with the Parts Admin, consider the possibility of formalizing a release schedule (and then ensure that it is adhered to)?