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):

The LDraw All-In-One-Installer 2011-01, in short AIOI, has now been released:

* It comes with the latest LDraw Parts Library update 2011-01 as well as MLCad.ini file.
* Thanks to J.C. Tchang the installer from now on also "speaks" French.
* Furthermore it detects an old version of the All-In-One-Installer and on request uninstalles it prior copying new files.
* It lets you also decide if you wanna register LDView to generate thumbnails of LDraw files in the Windows Explorer.
* The search for an installation done manually or by third party software is no longer performed. The quick search did not perform as expected and a deep scan would require too much time.

The AIOI supports Windows XP (Home and Pro), Windows Vista (all versions) and Windows 7 (all versions). On 64-Bit Operating Systems it will install in the "Program files (x86)" folder. The Installer will NOT run on Windows 95, 98, ME, NT Ver 4, 2000, or XP below SP2.

You can download the AIOI by going to the download database under the heading Critical Files and Libraries.

w.

LS Army Hardware Lineup - March 2011 by GreenLead, on Flickr

A POV-Ray rendering of the current range of Vehicles and Equipment used by the fictitious Lego States Army of Alpha Company fame. Most of these models were originally built (with physical LEGO) by other FOLs from the US and Europe, who emailed me step-by-step photos so that I could recreate them in LDraw.

Listed below are the designations of each item (left to right), as well as FOLs who built the originals.

Back Row

M6 Crusader Heavy Armored Truck by Ralph Savelsberg
A HEMTT-style truck primarily used for battlefield logistics, but other interchangeable payload modules are planned, including those used in the MIM-104 Patriot SAM system.

Non-Line-Of-Sight Launch System by Robin Chang
Based on the real-life NLOS-LS proposed for the US Army and affectionately dubbed "death in a box" by some AC Forum members, this is a unattended SSM launch pallet. Give it a launch order with target information and attack profile, it does the rest. Troops can easily pop open the side panel and replace spent missile pods.

M3 Panther Fast Assault Jeep by Aleksander Engvoll
Essentially a futuristic humvee, but don't let the spartan armour and exposed top fool you. As the name suggests, importance was placed on speed and agility, making for a hard-to-hit weapons platform. Can be mounted with a wide range of weapons to support dismounted infantry.

M5 Gremlin MULE by Robin Chang
A fully-autonomous battlefield resupply robot armed with a .50 cal. HMG and TOW AT missiles for convoy protection duties. Can carry up to one metric ton of infantry ammunition and supplies.

Front Row

U62 Eveningstar MAV by Chandler Parker
Inspired by the Honeywell XM156 proposed for the cancelled US Army FCS program. Micro reconnaissance drone able to hover over high-risk areas for extended duration.

U9 Badger SUGV by Chandler Parker
Inspired by iRobot XM1216 SUGVs. Ground drones with a rudimentary AI that allows it to search for IEDs and booby traps on the battlefield, as well as infiltrating buildings to check for hostile before infantry enters. All models have developed child-like personalities due to unexplainable circumstances.

M4 Cobra Hoverbike by Chandler Parker
Hovering scout motorbike. The scout infantryman's assault rifle can be mounted on the side and remotely-fired for self-defense.

U57 Buzzard MAV by Chandler Parker
Inspired by the USMC Dragon Eye drones. Hand-launched and electric duct fan powered micro reconnaissance drone.

For those of you interested, I have available building Instructions for all the models shown, published as PDFs. They are free to download.

C&C welcome

This baby took me a while and was the culmination of all the multi-parting skills I'd learned over making many other Star Wars models. I'm quite proud of it and how accurate all the angles are (interesting story: I ended up having to fudge a few of the angles by 2-3 degrees since apparently the real model depends on the flexibility of the parts to fit together correctly). I've never really followed the official naming scheme since, to me, it makes more sense to give sub-parts descriptive names to help you sort them out and remember how/where to use them.

Attached Files

  10143.mpd (Size: 104.08 KB / Downloads: 67)

As a user of the LDRAW system over the past 2-3 years, I've seen the official library grow substantially with the various updates. And while I'm always happy to see new parts and new updates, the happiness invariably turns to frustration when I see what hasn't been released, and what was released instead.

Take the last 2-3 updates, for example. The part developers seem to have developed an unhealthy obsession with Fabuland figures. Now, I don't have a problem with releasing older parts, but when it seems these are being prioritized over newer, useful, and more common parts, I begin to wonder. I mean those figures were used in what, 2-3 sets back in 1979? What about newer parts like 50955, 50956, 60956, and 51000 (to name a few) that have been sitting in "unofficial" limbo for who knows how long? Doesn't it seem like these parts should have a higher priority than older parts? I understand there are many different kinds of LDRAW users and we all likely have different tastes and different ideas of what parts are more important than others. However, I do have to wonder, are there really that many users out there demanding old, obscure parts over newer, more common ones?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm the person that should be deciding these things, but I do think it's important that the discussion be had. I don't fully understand all the intricacies of the organization here, but I would assume something like this would/should fall to the steering commitee. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they the ones that set the tone and guide other developers? If they said, "We should focus on these parts" and then focused on the parts themselves, it seems likely other part developers would follow suit. Perhaps I'm off on this, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You may be asking, "Who is this upstart punk, who's never so much as developed a 1x1 brick, nor involved himself in any way in the part-making process, to come in here questioning our decisions and processes?" And you're right, I'm nothing more than an end-user. I'm just a guy who likes building with LEGO using your software and data files. If that's not enough, then I'm sorry to have wasted your time...

Hello all,

I'm at the brink of finishing a 'basic basic' version of a new LDraw editor.

I would like to test this with a small group of people in order to weave out bugs and collect feedback on the feel of things.

Currently I found 3 people willing to help, but I would like to expand this group.

I'm looking for experienced LDraw users, because the software isn't 'new user' proof at the moment.

With the editor I'm aiming at a more visual oriented 'mlcad' way of doing things, so expect to work with grids etc.

Some features that are completed:

stepping (navigate through them, adding and placing stuff within a step)
relative grids (e.g. build a wall on a angle by setting the grid to the first bricks orientation).
multi file editing (open as many files you like)
mpd editing (basics -> add new, edit existing submodels)
undo/redo.
extendable and customizable part bin.
extendable and customizable color picking bin.
Editing wise you can place, move, delete and rotate parts

It's all running on OpenGL and it's very fast (if I may say so myself ), e.g. you could edit thousands of bricks in real-time on decent hardware.

Current version is Windows only but it's 99% portable code so a Linux and or Apple version should become available at some point.

Hope I sparked your interest, if all goes well I expect to release the test version next week.

If you are interested let me know here (and or) email me at [email protected] ether way I will be needing a valid email address of you in order to send the software when the time comes.

So, is it really "easier" to post in the new forum? When we're not even allowed to post feedback to point out problems in updates announced. I think it really sucks a lot.

My first impression is that LUGnet was way more open and Democratic. Do I hate this message: "Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed." Or, if I or anyone had anything to announce, LUGnet was an open forum for everyone.

I wish I could close this thread so you can experience how it feels not to able to respond to a message.

Why???

New forums is certainly more convenient

That said, I'm not a fan of the current "newsgroup" arrangement of replies to the OP - I'd rather scroll through a long page of replies like most forums, than having to click individual links to read each one.

Additional advantage is that one could read and quote from several people in the thread (copy-and-paste at the least, fancy board extensions for multiquoting for some board engines).

Thoughts?

Just out of curiosity does anyone know what TLG uses to design new parts (I would guess SolidWorks), and what do their model designers and instruction book people use to make digital versions of the official models? I toured PIXAR once and saw that their animators predominantly used an in-house animation software package (not sure of the name). I'm sure they use industry standard stuff too, but there was some seriously custom Pixar-only software for the animators.