| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 5,457
» Latest member: Jax
» Forum threads: 6,271
» Forum posts: 52,370
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 385 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 381 Guest(s) Baidu, Bing, Google, Yandex
|
|
|
| Description of parts |
|
Posted by: Manfred Schaefer - 2025-10-15, 19:18 - Forum: Parts Authoring
- Replies (12)
|
 |
Hello,
Part 73200bpaw corresponds to Bricklink part 970c86pb06.
In the LDraw part, the hip has a solid color of ‘Dark Red’ (320).
This part is also available with a gray hip (Light Bluish Gray, 71).
I assume that a new version would have to be created for this variant, for example 73200pax, even though the lower parts end with paw.
An extension such as c01 and c02 is not possible:
73200bpawc01 with hips in Dark Red,
73200bpawc02 with hips in Light Bluish Grey.
There is a similar problem with the minifig torsos (76382), where there are different hands or arms, for example.
Best regards,
Manfred
|
|
|
| Hair and Skirt Request |
|
Posted by: Will A - 2025-10-15, 13:39 - Forum: Part Requests
- Replies (3)
|
 |
Hello,
I am fairly new to LDraw so please pardon any mis-steps. There are two mifigure pieces I have always loved since they released, but they have become hard to find as one was only released in one CMF. The parts in question are
The Rococo Wig
https://rebrickable.com/parts/2517/hair-...strocrate/
and
The Rococo Skirt (dont actually care about the print, but a blank one has never been made)
https://rebrickable.com/parts/24068pr000...part_usage
as these parts are fairly uncommon and I don't think many people will be looking for them but I love deeply I am more thank willing to fund having them created, either by paying for the pieces or just straight up commissioning someone to make them. Any help is much appreciated.
Thanks!
|
|
|
| Difference between 86644, 92411 and 44728 |
|
Posted by: Jaco van der Molen - 2025-10-14, 12:43 - Forum: Parts Authoring
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Hi,
Concerning bracket 1x2 - 2x2 down
A mysterious question, perhaps not at all that relevant, but I found
- 44728 has two supports underneath
- 92411 has three
In LDraw 86644, 92411 and 44728 look all the same and have 2 supports.
- 86644 is the number for transparent pieces.
I even found there supposed to be a 21712.
I don't mean to nitpick, but should we add the 3rd support to 92411?
Does the 3rd support have a function on certain models?
And should there be yet another alias 21712?
Just wondering....
|
|
|
| Does any friend know how to classify the parts in the CustomParts folder of the studi |
|
Posted by: Jack - 2025-10-14, 12:08 - Forum: Help
- Replies (4)
|
 |
Hello everyone, I'm a beginner. While using Studio, I've added many custom parts, but all of these parts are placed in the CustomParts folder. If I categorize the files in the CustomParts folder, the parts won't display properly in the Studio software. I'd like to ask you amazing netizens if there's a way to organize them into categories. Right now, all the parts are mixed together, making it hard to find what I need. Thank you all in advance!
|
|
|
| Unit Conversion Ratios |
|
Posted by: Hageta - 2025-10-11, 18:10 - Forum: LDraw File Processing and Conversion
- Replies (3)
|
 |
I am currently working on this issue that involves unit conversion to LDraw (currently all units are first converted to mm and then to ldu).
And I came up with the following conversion ratios:
[Micron/Micrometer(μm): 400μm * 0.0025ldu/μm = 1ldu]
Millimeter(mm): 0.4m * 2.5ldu/mm = 1ldu
Centimeter(dm): 0.04m * 25ldu/cm = 1ldu
[Decimeter(dm): 0.004m * 250ldu/dm = 1ldu]
Meter(m): 0.0004m * 2500ldu/m = 1ldu
Inch(in, ″): 1/64in * 64ldu/in = 1ldu
Foot(ft, ′): 0.001312336ft * 762ldu/ft ~ 1ldu
Please take a look if I got everthing right.
* everthing in [] is just here for completness, allthough micron is actually a valid unit in 3mf files.
|
|
|
| Vertex precision |
|
Posted by: Peter Blomberg - 2025-10-09, 15:14 - Forum: Official File Specifications/Standards
- Replies (4)
|
 |
For free-form stand-alone vertexes, one decimal is usually enough. However, when a vertex is defined by a circular primitive, rotated subparts or the intersection of slanted surfaces, then more decimals are needed. I've tried working with three decimals, but tools like Edger2 will not always recognize the presence of a cond line rounded to three decimals. Similar results with overlap- and gap-finding tools.
The official parts library specifications state "In general, three decimal places are sufficient for parts, subparts, and primitives representing portions of parts that are not intended to be scaled (for example, studs, pegs, peg-holes, clips, hinge ends, etc.). Four decimal places should be used for high-res primitives and any primitives designed to be scaled (for example, cylinder sections, boxes, rectangles, discs, edges, etc.) as this allows such primitives to be scaled by a factor of ten while still preserving three decimal places of accuracy.".
I'd like to amend this by allowing 4 decimal places to be used for - vertexes on a rotational plane of symmetry (e.g. 30, 45, and 72 degree planes),
- intersections calculated by isecalc,
- any vertex that is defined by a scaled primitive.
The first one because this will avoid gaps/overlap when multiple similar subfiles are put together in a larger assembly.
The second one to have an accurate edge line where two surfaces intersect each other.
The third one to avoid gaps/overlap next to any scaled primitive. This is also needed for all cond lines that have a point or a control point on such a vertex.
If we all agree, can this be made official?
|
|
|
|