Hello all after a long absence. I started a new job last summer, and it has taken up a lot of my time.

I am revisiting a pet project of mine - a Java API to parse and represent LDraw files.
This was started a few years ago when I wanted to create .dat files from AutoCAD .dxf files.
I had a working prototype that got lost in between computers, and am starting to recreate it.

Well, I'm starting over, and was wondering if any one is interested in the effort. If there are any programmers out there that want to see the preliminaries, I can start a project out on SourceForge. The source itself will be initially be in my name, and I need to make sure that anything I put out there conforms to the licensing agreements for the Java3D and the Apache commons APIs. I do plan for the effort to be able to be used for creating Java applications in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Licence.

The intent is to:
- Fully represent the part file specification including the standard meta comments.
- Support the Java3D and the commons-math APIs for representing vector and matrix data.
- Actually give me some time doing development work in an area that also interests me.

Once I'm at a point that this is complete, tested, and documented. I'll be going back to that DXF parser and DXF-DAT app I started.

Why Java? I like and respect what Java has become. I know bytecode can be slower than optimized compiled code, but it's not that bad, and my experience is that sloppy programming is what makes a Java (or any) application perform badly.

Why bother? Why not. I'm a programmer and I enjoy programming and even if it never gets accepted or used, I'm enjoying the journey.

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=4502c
This plume is still missing- the little one and the triple is already there

bricklink says this part is in 52 sets- well, some of them are double counted due to us-versions or release
But if you take a look at that list its badly needed....



PS: Big thanks to all part authors, who made  parts I wished.

I'd like to request that the LSC take up the topic of a connection standard. Also, since Sergio was first to the develop something like this, I think his way to doing things should probably be what is standardized.

Guys,

just became aware that the there is no summary of the outgoing LSC for 2010/2011 at:

http://www.ldraw.org/Article399.html

Could one of you quickly fill the gaps? Thx,

w.

I have a couple questions.

1. Where is the best place to notify Lpub developers of bugs? Should we just email Kevin directly?

2. The Edit -> Add Text menu option is always greyed out for me (On an "inserted coverpage" where I have already added a picture it does not allow me to add text). What is LPUB command to add it manually?

I think that is for now

Thanks!

Chris Eyerly

It would be nice if the canoe could be made.
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=6021

I know this is a complicated part, so I'm more interested in if somebody is on it or tried it.
I've seen it is in LDD - so the shape didn't has to be done from scratch - but what I heard from part author from the LDD shape it is still along way...

Is anybody else interested in this part?

Michael Heidemann pointed out that the newly created OMR spec requires that filenames contain spaces, while the pre-existing LDraw 1.0.0 spec strongly discourages spaces or tabs in filenames. He (quite rightly, in my opinion) felt that this was inconsistent.

So, the way I see it, we have three choices:

1. Ignore the problem.
   
2. Remove the discouragement text from the LDraw standard.
   
3. Change the OMR standard so that the filenames don't include spaces.
   

Tim Gould asked that we come up with an official policy for Stud Groups. Unless I'm misunderstanding, he believes that stud groups of arbitrary X by Y dimensions should be created to fulfill the needs of any individual part, and others disagree.

I personally would lean towards restricting stud groups to 1xX, Xx1, and XxX (square). Most existing plates could be accommodated with at most three stud groups. However, I'm not a parts author, so I don't feel that my opinion on this should carry as much weight as part authors (both here on the LSC and not). Also, I agree with Tim that since there is disagreement about these among existing parts authors, it's better for us to set a standard (either direction) than to leave things like they are now.

Given that this affects parts authors, I invite all parts authors with an opinion on the issue to chime in on Tim's thread, to hopefully help us in our decision-making.

Help -is there is a way to convert a .leg file? I do not have Lego CAD

Here is an example:
http://daviscreek.cabe.k12.wv.us/legocad...lenges.htm

Firstly, hello and congratulations to the new LSC.

Secondly... stud groups. I'd really appreciate some clarity.

Personally I think any basic plate should potentially have an equivalent stud group and certainly the small ones. Mike and Steffen disagree.

Luckily we have a team of people who can resolve this issue officially once and for all. I'm happy to go with whatever is decided but I'd like to see a decision. In the grand scheme of things it's a minor issue but it's one that Mike felt strongly enough about to place a hold and I felt strongly enough about to disagree with the hold.

And a note on the solution should be added to the primitives reference page. Which I shall do when it happens.

Cheers,

Tim