The winners of the 2011/2012 LDraw Steering Committee [1] Election are (in alphabetical order by last name):

* Kevin Clague
* Chris Dee
* Orion Pobursky
* Willy Tschager
* Scott Wardlaw

Congratulations to the new LDraw Steering Committee members!

w.

[1] Try not to confuse the LDraw.org Steering Committee (SteerCo) with the LDraw
Standards Committee (LSC). The Steering Committee sets the course for the LDraw
Organization while the Standards Committee deals with the LDraw File Format.

Hi LSC,

could you please update us on what this body was last working on?

Thx, w.

Sigh, those were the days...

You have built a train set from that time in LDRAW?
Post it as reply here, if you like :-)

There always has been confusion about which color codes need to be used
for silver(ish) things or metal in our library.

I would like to sum up my state of knowledge and would like to discuss this here,
so the usage of color codes can be tidied up in our library.

Causing this post is the ongoing discussion at
http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cg...144485.dat
(, there had been some before already at other parts)

This is my (personal) state of knowledge,
I may be wrong in one or the other point of course.
When replying, please just don't assume that I or you are "just right",
because the library sometimes has inconsistencies.

color 179:
means "printed silver".
that is a color being used in patterns that get printed onto parts

color 383:
from the beginning was a "special color", used for physical metal parts
which appear "silverish" or "chromish" :-) ,
thus, do not use this for copper or other metal things

color 494:
another very special color.
it has been introduced for "electric studs",
which show up in historic LEGO instructions as studs with a yellow portion.
some tools for this reason used to render or code this color as yellow,
but nowadays most render it similar to 383, which frequently leads to confusion.
IMHO, this color code should ONLY be used for electric studs, and not used
too liberately, because it carries not only the semantics "made of silverish/chrome metal",
but also "shall show up in instructions as yellow" and
"is somewhat related to electric studs"

color 80:
I didn't know much about this color for long time and have never used it.
But I think it is for silver plastic parts like this
http://media.peeron.com/pics/inv/custpic...848722.jpg


BrickLink has a very good, visual color comparison table
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.a...itemType=P
, but sadly without LDRAW color codes.

IMHO, we definetely need such a table with visual part examples for our LDRAW library.

We also might or might not have to introduce new colors in ldconfig.ldr, or phase out some confusing ones
(and map them to others for downwards compatibility).

This model holds a special place for me since creating it is the reason I became a parts author which eventually led to me becoming part of the LDraw.org leadership.

Attached Files

  7181.mpd (Size: 16.42 KB / Downloads: 17)

Note: Uses unofficial parts which are included in the MPD file

Attached Files

  8652.mpd (Size: 142.44 KB / Downloads: 13)

Part of the Model Team series

Edit: Now OMR Compliant

Attached Files

  5521 - Sea Jet.mpd (Size: 20.54 KB / Downloads: 12)

Currently it appears sad to me that posts here in the forum
which contain a dat or ldr attachment are not visible graphically.
Can we add a feature that they get rendered on the server and get an image?

I would like to open the discussion here for including elements in our official LDRAW library
which allow synthesizing/generation of e.g. flexible parts like LSYNTH does.

The topic is chosen a bit unlucky, because of course LSYNTH is not the only program capable of that
now or in future, so we should not be tool-specific here (as always. our library is generic.)
I just chose the title of the thread, so the basic principle is clear.

I would like to suggest the following ideas and discuss them with you to get them
to a consensus for a future official library release.

Generation of flexible parts like cables, hoses etc. is usually something a user of our library would like to do.
The generation usually takes place by placing some start and end pieces, plus some constraint files,
and then sweeping some parts along some path to generate the flexible part.
The sweep can be smooth/continuous, or discrete, like for chain elements.
So we have different kinds of elements which come into play here:
(a) start / end parts (like chain elements)
(b) start / end subparts (like hose ends)
© constraint definition files
(d) sweeping primitives (like cable or hose)
(e) sweeping parts (like chain elements)

SUGGESTION 1: we should include all of these in the library.

Question is: which of (a)-(e) should go into which folder?
What is a part or a subpart or a primitive?
In the past there has been this suggestion:
put all into the PARTS folder, because otherwise MLCad won't show them
However, I do not like this idea at all, here are the reasons:
1. This is a tool-specific problem. Just because MLCad today only shows parts, this should not affect our library design.
2. The logic if something is a part, subpart or primitive applies to LSYNTH elements the same way as to normal files.
This especially becomes important when software needs to decide where to add gaps etc.
So my next suggestion is:

SUGGESTION 2: apply the usual part/subpart/primitive logic to LSYNTH files as for all other library files. Do not put them all in PARTS, just to let them show in MLCad. To solve the MLCad problem, many other solutions are possible, e.g.: put "helper" files into the PARTS folder which are shortcuts to the real places. These helper files should be a separate download, as they are a workaround for a specific tool (MLCad) and not part of our library. Maybe not even that is necessary, read on:

Some people have suggested to add a new category for syntesized parts.
Of course, we should not use "!CATEGORY LSynth", because that would be tool-specific.
Instead, something like "!CATEGORY Parts Synthesizing" comes to my mind.
However, I would like to doubt the necessity for such a category.
Reason: normally, tools like LSYNTH (and LSYNTH does) do contain specific lists of combinations of
start/sweep/end combinations, which you can conveniently select.
So there is not really a necessity to be able to browse the synthesized part elements.
So we get

SUGGESTION 3: Do not add a special category like "!CATEGORY Parts Synthesizing", as this seems not to be necessary.

The last question to answer is "origin and sizing etc".
There the answer is simple: I suggest that for sweeping primitives we use the same origin/placement/sizing policy as for our other primitives:
this means: origin on top, height 1. 4-4cyli is a good example. So for example, to generate a two-wire-cable, you would sweep 2 merged cylinders along some path. The sweeping primitive should have height 1, and should have its origin at its top.
The benefit of this suggestion is:
(a) the sweeping primitives have the same origin policy as the other primitives in our library
(b) LSYNTH directly will be able to use them without modification, as it follows that principle as well
So we get:

SUGGESTION 4: For sweeping primitives, put origin at top, and make them height 1.

The situation for non-sweeping primitives is different. Let's go away from the electric cable and instead to a chain
made of discrete elements of fixed length. My suggestion there is:
let's apply the usual origin placing logics there. The reason is simple: these elements are normally parts with a tilde ~ prefix,
and sit normally in the PARTS folder. LSYNTH needs anyway a configuration file which tells it how to assemble such elements.
It for example today has such for chain elements. So we get:

SUGGESTION 5: For non-sweeping synthesizing elements, apply the usual origin paradigms.

Just thought I'd share this again here for anyone who might be interested - my version of a script to convert Google SketchUp models to LDraw format. It is very rudimentary and not particularly user-friendly, but I found it useful to be able to take advantage of SketchUp's various modeling features to get started on a part. You'll have to edit the output manually to incorporate any existing LDraw primitives.

The script is available here: http://code.google.com/p/sketchupldraw/downloads/list
Pasted below is the documentation, such as it is (which also appears at the top of the script file):