Is this the famous LEGO design software?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=TLt8Ij...jupc#t=27s
Or is this just used to create the funny animation film with the firetruck?

When parts are used in assemblies (provided as such by LEGO, and impossible to separate in normal use) their description begins with ~ so they don't appear in part tree. LDraw user should use assembly shortcuts instead.

It seems that things are not completely clear, as discussions around this come up from time to time on PT. Here is my opinion about this.

• For assemblies without moving parts, it's simple: all parts composing the assembly are ~, and an assembly shortcut is provided (several shortcuts may be needed to account for different color combinations). Example: NXT light sensor 55969 shortcut, composed of ~parts 54732, 55972, 55816, 55970, 55966.
  
• For assemblies with moving parts, a shortcut should be provided for each mechanical entity. This way the LDraw user can compose its own assembly in any position. An overall assembly is provided as well, to simplify user life when default position is OK, and for bill of materials usage. Example: NXT motor has a case assembly 54715c01, and an axle hub assembly 54725c01. Case assembly 54715c01 is made of ~parts 54714, 54715, 54716, 54717 and 54732. Hub assembly 54725c01 is made of two 54725 ~parts. Complete motor assembly 53787 is made of 54715c01 + 54725c01
  
• In case one of the moving assemblies is reduced to a single part (eg. axle hub of PF motors), the description of this part is not tilded, so that the user can pick it easily to create his own position combination. For example, the small linear actuator has 3 sections moving independantly:
  - the body, assembly 92693c01, composed of ~parts 92693 and 92697
  - the rotating axle, single part not tilded 92695.
  - the piston, single part not tilded 92696.
  Two complete assemblies are provided, contracted and extended (92693c02 and 92693c03)
  

i can find no similar part. is it avaiable somehow?

bad robot arm

this topic is intended for sharing Classic Town sets

I'm drawing some of my mocs in MLcad, and i'd like to use the exact part number for each piece. But there are some parts that i cannot find but of which exists an almost identical part.
For example my moc contains part n 61252, but it doesn't exists in LDraw, so i used part 6019 instead.
Maybe the part has yet to be added to LDraw Part Library? Or is it something wanted?

It's a pity that i can't add the correct part as some sites like Rebrickable can calculate what MOC you can build with the pieces you have and this kind of things break the functionality.

Thanks

post Fabuland models below this topic

Please vote on the proposal below. Please modify the Subject to include your name and vote, in addition to giving your vote in the text.

• Update the LDraw file format version number to 1.1.0. Note: 1.1.0 was chosen instead of 1.0.2, as this change was thought to be too big for such a minor version number change.
  
• Add the following sub-section under the "Basic parsing / file content" sub-section of the "LDraw Files" section:
  

  Quote:Multi-Part Dat (MPD)
  Any LDraw file, no matter its file extension, may be a Multi-Part Dat file (file with other files wrapped inside). This is done using the MPD Language Extension.

• Change the "MPD Statements" sub-section of the "META Commands" section to be as follows:
  

  Quote:Support for the MPD Language Extension is required.

Quote:To reiterate: No other meta-commands (including the MPD meta-command) are allowed in official parts.

I'm still working on the flexable parts functionality, I'm currently trying to roundup / implement all needed options for a bendable part.

Thing is I might be overdoing it somewhat, so I was wondering what the experienced LSynth and or part authors might think.

Current meta/option processing allows for something like this:



This 'path' has two sets of options (one of which is displayed in the dialog) that describe how the segments must be placed etc.

The thing I might be obsessing over is the fact the chain links still don't bend 'naturally' in my opinion (because they are actually double jointed in real life), but I might be overdoing it quality wise

Anyone think there need to be additional options to solve this (e.g. possibility to include prev/next segment for cur segment placement in order to account for the double joint etc).

I think the current options are quite understandable, but I'm happy to explain them more if needed.

Just looking for some fresh perspectives

edit: some more examples:

Hello all,

I am looking for this part 64647: Minifig, Plume Feather Triple Compact / Flame / Water
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=64647
I know it exists because I had it once and used here
https://sites.google.com/site/workingwit...ons/cowboy
Anyone know what has happened to it?
I cannot seem to find it at the partstracker either.
Tnx!

Jaco

It seems that color code 82, metallic gold, was changed in latest ldconfig.ldr. It now looks dark and brownish (it could be a convincing copper color!). Is this intended? what color code should I use to get the right color in patterns or gold painted parts?
#DBAC34 -> #8C5C20