Original Grey Technic motor from 1977: 6216a

[Jens Bauer]

Hi all.

This is my first submission (and first forum post).

I've submitted a new part; the original 4.5V electric technic motor from 1977 with 2 subparts:
Electric Technic Motor 4.5V
Electric Technic Motor 4.5V Core
Electric Technic Motor 4.5V Shaft

I'm hoping to reserve a subpart name for a special variant of this, which is quite rare.
The subpart I'd like is an arrow, which is on top of some of the motors (these have a nylon bearing and never squeak).

My work is strongly derived from Chris Dee's work; I only made (calculated) changes by hand to the .dat files using a text-editor.

[Steffen]

Thank you for your work!

I would like to encourage you to add 1 more thing to your files: BFCing.

We just recently achieved the milestone of making all official files BFC compliant.
All corrected parts have been uploaded to the parts tracker.

Your files now are the only ones which are not BFC certified.

Therefore it would be desirable to get them BFCed.

To help you understand what that means, I wrote a Wiki article for you, and for other new LDRAW authors:
https://wiki.ldraw.org/wiki/BFC

I hope that after reading it you understand this request a little better.

best -
Steffen

[Magnus Forsberg]

Hej Jens,

Did you start from Chris file, the current official one, or from the reworked version I've uploded to the Part Tracker?
6216m = 6216ma+6126mb+6216mc+6216md  ( Why is it called "m" ? What does it stand for?)

Why did you number your motor "6216a" ? What does the a stand for?

You seem to know a lot about these motors.
Maybe we could make this a joint effort, and create some more improvments on the "subparts". They still need a lot of work before a release is possible. I want to create closed meshes. They aslo need to be moved from s/-folder to Part-folder.

What is the visual difference between 6216m, 6216a and 6228a, the 4.5V and 12V motors?
Do you know a good source of pictures of these motors?

[Jens Bauer]

Hej Jens,

Did you start from Chris file, the current official one, or from the reworked version I've uploded to the Part Tracker?
6216m = 6216ma+6126mb+6216mc+6216md  ( Why is it called "m" ? What does it stand for?)

Why did you number your motor "6216a" ? What does the a stand for?

You seem to know a lot about these motors.
Maybe we could make this a joint effort, and create some more improvments on the "subparts". They still need a lot of work before a release is possible. I want to create closed meshes. They aslo need to be moved from s/-folder to Part-folder.

What is the visual difference between 6216m, 6216a and 6228a, the 4.5V and 12V motors?
Do you know a good source of pictures of these motors?

Hej Magnus.

I started from the one that came with my ldraw installation (in the hope that it would be the most recent one - so my guess is that it's likely the 'official' one).
-But I'll try and check if there are any differences from the most recent one I can find here on ldraw.org, then I could likely apply the differences to the most recent one instead.

I don't know everything about the 4.5V Technic motors, but as I'm from Denmark and since my siblings and I were very interested in LEGO, our presents for christmas and birthdays were usually LEGO.
Some parts were likely only available in Denmark too; I think the 'arrow-motor' might be one of those candidates.
Note: I've later found out that the bearing is not nylon, but it's an oilite bronze bearing. I will update that information when I make the next submission.

I briefly spoke with Chris about the part numbering, 6216a was chosen because it's the very first variant of the 1977 "grey" motor.
I'm not completely sure why 6216m was chosen for the 'later' model.
6216me and 6216mf was chosen, since 6216md is reserved for other purposes.
I hope that 6216mh will be available for the arrow that goes on top of those with the oilite bearing.
(I'll have to purchase a motor with the arrow on top of it, if I am able to find one; I've already called LEGO and asked about it, but so far no success).

As for the 12V motors, we never had any of those (although we often saw it in the local store). My brothers weren't interested in it, because they were convinced it would not be as strong or fast as the 4.5V variant. -But it definitely looks better.

[Jens Bauer]

Thank you for your work!

I would like to encourage you to add 1 more thing to your files: BFCing.

We just recently achieved the milestone of making all official files BFC compliant.
All corrected parts have been uploaded to the parts tracker.

Your files now are the only ones which are not BFC certified.

Therefore it would be desirable to get them BFCed.

To help you understand what that means, I wrote a Wiki article for you, and for other new LDRAW authors:
http://wiki.ldraw.org/index.php?title=BFC

I hope that after reading it you understand this request a little better.

best -
Steffen

Hi Steffen.

Thank you for the review.
I will try and see if I can make it BFC certified (I'm color-blind, so red/green might not be the easiest for me to work with, but we'll see).
I do think I understand what's behind BFC, since I'm a developer myself (I've made my own graphics-primitives, which includes winding-rules, thus it's likely similar, just for 3D).
In my opinion - from what I understand, BFC is a good idea and the right way to go.
It's always a good idea to optimize data-formats so processing is as easy for the CPU as possible.

[Steffen]

I always thought that the "m" suffix was a quick n dirty ad-hoc filename submittal, with "m" for "motor"...
I think we should renumber that to the usual ...a, ...b, ...c, ... scheme.

[Jens Bauer]

I always thought that the "m" suffix was a quick n dirty ad-hoc filename submittal, with "m" for "motor"...
I think we should renumber that to the usual ...a, ...b, ...c, ... scheme.

If it's "renumbered", then remember that there are at least 4 variants of the motor.

The very first variant of this was made in 1977, the position of the rubber-band groove is near the end of the axle (870).
The second variant has the oilite bearing and on the top (between the studs) it has an arrow pointing forward (maybe 960, maybe only released in a plastic bag). I think this one was released in late 1977 or in 1978.
It seems the third variant, is the 12V motor, which is black (880).

The fourth variant is likely the "expert builder" variant with an extra prong hole and the rubber-band groove closer to the body of the motor (eg. Chris Dee's files). This was the variant that came with a new battery enclosure.

I do not know if there are more than one 3-prong hole variant.
I haven't seen a 12V variant with 3 prong holes and re-positioned rubber-band groove, but it might exist.
Note: The 'service pack 1175' (4.5V motor in a plastic bag) could contain any of the 3 grey variants, including the 1982 variant with the middle-prong hole.

[Santeri Piippo]

I will try and see if I can make it BFC certified (I'm color-blind, so red/green might not be the easiest for me to work with, but we'll see).

In LDView's settings you can disable the "green front faces" option, so the default color is used instead of green. Then you can choose the default color to be something that contrasts better.

It's always a good idea to optimize data-formats so processing is as easy for the CPU as possible.

Nowadays it's the GPU that does the back face culling, rather. Even if there's no graphics card the CPU chip has an integrated GPU. But having consistent winding has other algorithmical uses besides just rendering.

[Chris Dee]

I always thought that the "m" suffix was a quick n dirty ad-hoc filename submittal, with "m" for "motor"...
I think we should renumber that to the usual ...a, ...b, ...c, ... scheme.

The 'm' suffix was used 'back in the day' because this is one case where there is conflct between DesignID numbers and Part numbers. DesignID 6216 is Brick 2 x 4 x 2 with Curved Top but 6216 was also used by LEGO to describe the part assembly which is this motor.
I have deferred finding a solution for this for too long, so now is maybe the time to find a solution.
It's also the reason why I have not certified the two doors 73313 and 73312.
[/url][url=http://www.ldraw.org/library/official/parts/6216.dat]

[Santeri Piippo]

The 'm' suffix was used 'back in the day' because this is one case where there is conflct between DesignID numbers and Part numbers. DesignID 6216 is Brick 2 x 4 x 2 with Curved Top but 6216 was also used by LEGO to describe the part assembly which is this motor.
I have deferred finding a solution for this for too long, so now is maybe the time to find a solution.

I agree with Steffen about the a, b, c... suffix. Isn't that what we use when there's two colliding IDs?

[Steffen]

yes.
that's why I suggested it.

[Steffen]

the a,b,c,d,... don't need to be in chronological order.

we can add motor variants as we find or model them.

let's just start with the 2 finished ones.
the remaining ones can be added later.

[Chris Dee]

yes.
that's why I suggested it.

Following current numbering conventions the four subparts (6216ma..6216md) would be ~-prefixed parts and the motor assembly (6216m) would be XXXXc01 where XXXX is the designID of the main part (the casing). Unfortunately we don't know any of the numbers for those, so would need to use uXXXX numbers.

s/6216ma --> u9372
s/6216mb --> u9373
s/6126mc --> u9374
s/6216md --> u9375
6216m -- u9372c01
and for the new version
s/6216me --> u9376
s/6216mf --> u93777 and u9377 (split platic and metal section or reuse u9375)
6216a --> u9372c02

[Jens Bauer]

s/6216me --> u9376
s/6216mf --> u93777 and u9377 (split platic and metal section or reuse u9375)
6216a --> u9372c02

Unfortunately, the metal-axle differ; the 1977 variant is slightly shorter because otherwise it would be visible from the outside.
(I actually made 6216mf '0.1' shorter, but it could be a much lower number).
If u9375 is to be re-used, then I think u9375 needs to be slightly shorter (just a fraction of its current length), so that the axle will cover the metallic surface. By a fraction, I mean something like 1/1000000mm would be fine, because the rendering engine shouldn't be as picky as we humans, except for possible rounding-errors, so beware of this.
I also think your plastic axle would need a modification, eg. making a cylindrical hole all the way through the axle, so the metallic axle would be visible.

[Magnus Forsberg]

IMO, we should keep the correct lego number 6216 on this motor.
6216m -- 6216c01
6216a -- 6216c02
but all the "sub-parts" should be moved to u93XX numbers.

I think we should arrange it like other motors have been arranged.
One static, complete housing (without the axle) + one user adaptable axle.
motor = body (complete (casing+core)) + axle (complete (steel axle + plastic axle))


I added some metal connector plates inside the core, 6216mb.dat. Are they passably correct?

How about the length of the steel axle? I think it is way too long. It shoudn't protrude outside the case, into the core. Right?

[Jens Bauer]

IMO, we should keep the correct lego number 6216 on this motor.
6216m -- 6216c01
6216a -- 6216c02
but all the "sub-parts" should be moved to u93XX numbers.

I think we should arrange it like other motors have been arranged.
One static, complete housing (without the axle) + one user adaptable axle.
motor = body (complete (casing+core)) + axle (complete (steel axle + plastic axle))


I added some metal connector plates inside the core, 6216mb.dat. Are they passably correct?

How about the length of the steel axle? I think it is way too long. It shoudn't protrude outside the case, into the core. Right?

It seems that LEGO distinguishes between "design numbers" and "element numbers".
The design number is the number, which is visible on the inside of the part.
The element number is the number you find in the building instructions.

Original danish text from LEGO's web-site: "De fleste af vores sæt har en liste af alle inkluderede dele med deres element numre i slutningen af byggevejledningen. Design nummeret er støbt i indersiden af elementet selv."

Design number 6216 has two element numbers:
621623 and 621624
Thus the motor would have element number 6216, which is not the design number.
(I'm not sure the links are direct links)

About the length of the axle - I'm not sure what you mean. Protrude -do you mean the front or the back ?

I think the steel axle could be the same for both variants of the motor (just the fraction shorter, mentioned earlier).
Then one of two short black plastic axles could be added (one that is shared with the gearbox that looks like the motor and one for the grey 1982 model).

I'm not completely sure if it's a good idea having a single "motor housing" where you can't "pull it apart" - I can see the advantages, but since the motor can be taken apart and someone might want to purchase/sell such parts separately (because the counterpart may have been damaged), it might be a good idea to keep them separated - just an opinion.

[Steffen]

IMO, we should keep the correct lego number 6216 on this motor.
6216m -- 6216c01
6216a -- 6216c02
but all the "sub-parts" should be moved to u93XX numbers.

I agree with Magnus here

[Jens Bauer]

I would like to encourage you to add 1 more thing to your files: BFCing.
I hope that after reading it you understand this request a little better.

I've played around with LDView. Fortunately, the red/green colors are not a problem for me.
-I'm not completely sure I've understood the BFC correctly.
Eg. I would have expected the motor housing needed to be green on the outside and on the inside.
Eg. a standard 4 x 2 brick would not be 'red' when seen from the bottom, right ?

I've made two files for the rear-part of the motor, they should illustrate what I mean; they're attached as two images (in order to make things a little easier).
One of them must be wrong.
If I understand it correctly and the current housing is correct, then 'x2' (first attachment, left) should be correct.
If the housing should actually be red on the inside, then 'x3' (second attachment, right) should be correct (I actually like x3 better, but that doesn't mean it's right).

-So now I'll need to ask you, in order to get a correct understanding; which one of them are correct.

Note: I spent a couple of hours correcting the file I submitted, rather than re-applying my changes to the current one; I also added some thickness to the part where it joins with the main motor housing.

[Philippe Hurbain]

Hi Jens,
Right one is correct. By "inside" we mean "inside plastic", not "inside an assembly made of several parts". Hope I'm clear, feel free to ask otherwise

[Chris Dee]

IMO, we should keep the correct lego number 6216 on this motor.
6216m -- 6216c01
6216a -- 6216c02
but all the "sub-parts" should be moved to u93XX numbers.

I agree with Magnus here

I would not want to use 6216c01 / 6216c02, because 6216 is the designID for Brick 2 x 4 x 2 with Curved Top. The LDraw parts folder should (ideally) contain only design IDs, and where there is a conflict between DesignID and ElementID, we don't have a good solution. Using 6216a, or 6216m is a hack because elsewhere NNNNA, NNNNb, etc. are varients of the same design. I welcome suggestions to resolve this and apologise to Jens for inadvertantly opening this 'can or worms' with the good work that he has done.
[url=http://www.ldraw.org/library/official/parts/6216.dat][/url]

[Steffen]

OK for me!

[Jens Bauer]

Hi Jens,
Right one is correct. By "inside" we mean "inside plastic", not "inside an assembly made of several parts". Hope I'm clear, feel free to ask otherwise

That's the most clear explanation I've ever heard.
Thank you for making it easy to understand.
-So I take it that ideally, the motor housing should be green when looking on the 'inside of it'... =)

[Jens Bauer]

I would not want to use 6216c01 / 6216c02, because 6216 is the designID for Brick 2 x 4 x 2 with Curved Top. The LDraw parts folder should (ideally) contain only design IDs, and where there is a conflict between DesignID and ElementID, we don't have a good solution. Using 6216a, or 6216m is a hack because elsewhere NNNNA, NNNNb, etc. are varients of the same design. I welcome suggestions to resolve this and apologise to Jens for inadvertantly opening this 'can or worms' with the good work that he has done.

My brother just sent me a bunch of DesignIDs for the motors; there are a lot of different numbers, more than I expected.
The numbers were read from the bottom of the motors - the space is important:
Two prong hole variants:
" 8 20" (arrow motor, the one with bronze oilite bearing)
" 9 26"
" 40 5"
" 0 50" (my own old motor)
" 9 26" (so he has two of these)

...
Three prong hole variants:
"41 8"
"34 9"
"9 26" (this is the DesignID for the body, so he actually has 3 of the motors that use this housing)
"28 8"
"39 8"
"20 7"
"36 9"
"47 4"

-I find those numbers quite short - are they the full DesignID numbers, or would additional numbers have to be added ?

I do know there are more variants than I first mentioned (I saw a few more yesterday; eg. old style axle on a 3-prong hole motor; it's for sale on eBay - I saved the picture on my computer).
Maybe I'll make a small web-site with all those different variants I can find - I know Magnus is also interested in this.
@Magnus - I'm also interested in closed meshes (as you can probably see from the two PNGs I attached earlier).

[Magnus Forsberg]

The right, green one is correct.
You should never see a red surface on the outside of a closed mesh, when you're rotating it and looking at it from the outside.

Both my reworked parts, 6216ma and 6216mb are missing a closed mesh.
I'll add a closed surface to 6216ma.

[Magnus Forsberg]

I think we should arrange it like other motors have been arranged.
One static, complete housing (without the axle) + one user adaptable axle.
motor = body (complete (casing+core)) + axle (complete (steel axle + plastic axle))

motor(complete) = (body(complete, made of casing part+ core part)) + (axle(complete, made of steel axle part + plastic axle part)).

We like to have the motor casing as a separate shortcut without the axle, and the axle as a separate part, so that a user could rotate the axle to any position he/she wants.

Design number 6216 has two element numbers:
621623 and 621624

This is LEGO's older way of creating a DesignID: Partnumber+colour code
621623 is a bright blue "Brick  2 x  4 x  2 with Curved Top"
621624 is a yellow "Brick  2 x  4 x  2 with Curved Top"

23 is LEGOID Bright Blue
24 is LEGOID Yellow


and in this case, they are unrelated numbers.

About the length of the axle - I'm not sure what you mean. Protrude -do you mean the front or the back ?

The steel axle, in 6216m.dat, is visible if you peek into the holes at the back of the motor. I think it is too long.

[Chris Dee]

I would not want to use 6216c01 / 6216c02, because 6216 is the designID for Brick 2 x 4 x 2 with Curved Top. The LDraw parts folder should (ideally) contain only design IDs, and where there is a conflict between DesignID and ElementID, we don't have a good solution. Using 6216a, or 6216m is a hack because elsewhere NNNNA, NNNNb, etc. are varients of the same design. I welcome suggestions to resolve this and apologise to Jens for inadvertantly opening this 'can or worms' with the good work that he has done.

My brother just sent me a bunch of DesignIDs for the motors; there are a lot of different numbers, more than I expected.
The numbers were read from the bottom of the motors - the space is important:
Two prong hole variants:
" 8 20" (arrow motor, the one with bronze oilite bearing)
" 9 26"
" 40 5"
" 0 50" (my own old motor)
" 9 26" (so he has two of these)

...
Three prong hole variants:
"41 8"
"34 9"
"9 26" (this is the DesignID for the body, so he actually has 3 of the motors that use this housing)
"28 8"
"39 8"
"20 7"
"36 9"
"47 4"

-I find those numbers quite short - are they the full DesignID numbers, or would additional numbers have to be added ?

I do know there are more variants than I first mentioned (I saw a few more yesterday; eg. old style axle on a 3-prong hole motor; it's for sale on eBay - I saved the picture on my computer).
Maybe I'll make a small web-site with all those different variants I can find - I know Magnus is also interested in this.
@Magnus - I'm also interested in closed meshes (as you can probably see from the two PNGs I attached earlier).

These are probably not design numbers but mould position/version identifiers. With parts where one injection mould is used to make multiple copies of the part it was common practice with parts of this age for each to have a different numeric identifier. Presumably this helped to identify flaws specific to one position in the mould.

[Jens Bauer]

I think we should arrange it like other motors have been arranged.
One static, complete housing (without the axle) + one user adaptable axle.
motor = body (complete (casing+core)) + axle (complete (steel axle + plastic axle))

motor(complete) = (body(complete, made of casing part+ core part)) + (axle(complete, made of steel axle part + plastic axle part)).

We like to have the motor casing as a separate shortcut without the axle, and the axle as a separate part, so that a user could rotate the axle to any position he/she wants.

About the length of the axle - I'm not sure what you mean. Protrude -do you mean the front or the back ?

The steel axle, in 6216m.dat, is visible if out peek into the holes at the back of the motor. I think it is too long.

Regarding the motor (complete) ... At first I thought you meant joining the main housing and the rear piece in one file.
-But I now understand that you want to have the motor without an axle, so the axle can be rotated.
I can certainly see the benefit in this.

... The axle being visible through the hole...
My brother and I used to drill a small hole (around the size of a prong-hole) for lubricating the motor, so it would not squeak any longer.
As I recall it, the axle was fairly close to the hole. Unfortunately I do not have a motor where I am, so I can't open one.

BTW: Magnus, I'm currently in the process of adding some pictures to a web-site, you may find some of them interesting.
I'm not done yet, so it's a draft-site and more pictures will be added as I find them.
Hover the mouse over each picture and you should see a 'tool-tip' showing some information about the picture.
Each picture can be opened full-size.

[Magnus Forsberg]

I'll add a closed surface to 6216ma.

An updated version is now present at the Part Tracker.

[Jens Bauer]

I think we should arrange it like other motors have been arranged.
One static, complete housing (without the axle) + one user adaptable axle.
motor = body (complete (casing+core)) + axle (complete (steel axle + plastic axle))

As I've probably indicated before, I think this is a good idea.
However, from a user's view, it would be cumbersome to always have to assemble the motor before use (I very much like that I can just drop the parts in and use them directly).

That could be solved by adding an extension to the 'assembled motor'; eg. making the axle 'rotatable'.
Such an extension can not be used at the moment, because no programs supports it, but it would make things easier for the user, plus other 'assembled' items would be able to use the feature as well.
I do not know how many items that have attached rotatable objects, but I can think of a few:
Various Turntables (small 2x2, old '4x4', technic 4x4, other larger technic)
Lego Minifig (head).
Maxifig arms.
... and a whole bunch of other parts.

If that idea is worth considering, then it'll be important to present a list to the editing application of 'angles' that can be changed.
Eg. A minifig has legs, arms and a head; all those would need an axis and a default angle and the editing application would need to know what can be changed.

Some day in the future, this could perhaps be taken a step further, in order to support animations - just guessing.

I'll leave the idea open for further thoughts - it should probably go in its own thread anyway.

[Chris Dee]

Hi all.

This is my first submission (and first forum post).

I've submitted a new part; the original 4.5V electric technic motor from 1977 with 2 subparts:
Electric Technic Motor 4.5V
Electric Technic Motor 4.5V Core
Electric Technic Motor 4.5V Shaft

I'm hoping to reserve a subpart name for a special variant of this, which is quite rare.
The subpart I'd like is an arrow, which is on top of some of the motors (these have a nylon bearing and never squeak).

My work is strongly derived from Chris Dee's work; I only made (calculated) changes by hand to the .dat files using a text-editor.

I have done a major refactoring based on the discussion here (and on the Parts Tracker) and provided a review summary page at http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptreviewsum...1977motors.

[Jens Bauer]

I have done a major refactoring based on the discussion here (and on the Parts Tracker) and provided a review summary page at http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptreviewsum...1977motors.

Thank you for this; I think it's the right way to go.

I realized today that I had been working on files taken from the wrong BrickSmith installation. :/
-I previously had 2.4 and 2.5 installed with files that were a few years old; the new installation (2.6) have new parts.
I must have picked the wrong LDraw library.


I may have done some redundant work, but it's given me some training in how to make parts and how to work with BFC.


Earlier today I played around with "prettifying" the motor axle; this is still based upon the old files, but I've made two files that could go into the 'p' folder. One file make the rubber-band groove look much more smooth / like the groove on the original motor, the other file makes the end of axles look better. -See attached screenshot (please ignore the steel axle).

I've also looked at u9374 and noticed the move away from "round" cylinders - I understand this is for several reasons, including the lack of ability to make a round hole in a rectangular shape.

Before I submit, the two files I have so far needs to be updated, so they make a perfect match/fit for your current axles.
(I'll submit updates to u9376 and 9377 with my latest BFC'ed versions, as a few bugs have been fixed).

[Chris Dee]

I've also looked at u9374 and noticed the move away from "round" cylinders - I understand this is for several reasons, including the lack of ability to make a round hole in a rectangular shape.

I don't understand what you mean. All I did is move the origin to make it easier to rotate the axle relative to the body.

[Magnus Forsberg]

I'll submit updates to u9376 and 9377 with my latest BFC'ed versions, as a few bugs have been fixed.

I've made and uploaded a subfile to u9373, that I can only hope could be used in u9376 aswell.

[Jens Bauer]

I don't understand what you mean. All I did is move the origin to make it easier to rotate the axle relative to the body.

Actually, it's me who's confusing, sorry for the noise.
I was looking at u9374 and saw the hole for the steel axle, and since this hole cannot be produced using a round cylinder, it needs to be made using several quads.
After noticing this, I also saw that the cylinder used for the rubber-band groove was constructed of quads (but the one I submitted already used this tecnhique a long time ago).

[Jens Bauer]

I made 3 primitives for axles:
Axle Endcap
Axle Endcap with Hole
Axle Groove (now renamed)

(Max kindly pointed out to me that the quads on the ends are warped; this was not intended and I'll attempt to correct this for next submission).

The end-cap for the motor has been updated too.

I submitted updates for the two axles, which use the above 3 files:

Electric Technic Motor Plastic Axle (1982 variant)
Electric Technic Motor Plastic Axle (1977-1979 variant - also use by gearbox)

At some point, I expect to 'close' the unseen end of both plastic axles.
(Sorry for the many extra re-submissions; I wanted to make this submission of as good quality as I could).

[Jens Bauer]

(quoted from parts-tracker)
...or you could flatten the warped quads
4 13 6 0 0 5 1 0 4.802 1 1 5.602 0 2
4 13 5 1 0 6 0 0 5.602 0 -2 4.802 1 -1

I appreciate this much more than you can imagine!
-I've been trying to calculate the last component since yesterday, but couldn't warp my brain around it.

How did you calculate the last component (4.802) ?
(Max told me that you wrote on PT about such things, is there a direct link, because I haven't yet been able to find it ?)

... I've used the component value you sent me, so now I'm moving on to the cond-lines.

A cond-line could be made like this:
5 4 6 0 0 5 1 0 5.602 0 -2 5.602 0 2

In endcap.dat (and endcaph.dat), would I only need 4 cond-lines ?

... I would expect that I need 12 cond-lines in axlegroove.dat, is that correct ?

[Steffen]

I created a Wiki page about condlines
https://wiki.ldraw.org/wiki/Conditional_Line

( , of course not mainly aimed at you, but to other future new part authors. )

[Jens Bauer]

I created a Wiki page about condlines
http://wiki.ldraw.org/index.php?title=Conditional_Line

( , of course not mainly aimed at you, but to other future new part authors. )

This page is good. Edger2 definitely sounds interesting (I think it can also be used to detect missing cond-lines if making some script-fu).

A few questions I'd like to request a FAQ for:
[these are from my current understanding, which may need correction].

Q: When do I want to add a cond-line ?
A: When a surface is not flat and does not have sharp edges; eg. on smooth surfaces like for instance cylinders.

Q: Can you help me understanding where to put the control-points ?
A: They need to always be 'behind' the line that needs to be shown/hidden. Use the corners farthest away on the polygons that the line 'connects' as control points. If the line connects two triangles, use the corners of the triangles which do not share any points with the line to be shown/hidden.

Q: Which color number should I use for a cond-line ?
A: ?

[Chris Dee]

Q: Which color number should I use for a cond-line ?
A: ?

Typically 24 (edge colour), unless they are within a coloured decoration (pattern or sticker).

[Jens Bauer]

Q: Which color number should I use for a cond-line ?
A: ?

Typically 24 (edge colour), unless they are within a coloured decoration (pattern or sticker).

Thank you, this is definitely helpful and makes a lot of sense.

I'll correct the condlines too; currently they're using color 4.

[Magnus Forsberg]

How did you calculate the last component (4.802) ?

I didn't calc anything.... I'm a more hands-on guy. Just grab and move.
A text editor like LDDP and LDView as a viewer, are a good place to start editing, but I recommend LDPE from Nils Schmidt.
Both LDDP and LDPE have a good error varning system. (In LDDP just press F10, to run.)
[url=http://nilsschmidt1337.github.io/ldparteditor/][/url]

In endcap.dat (and endcaph.dat), would I only need 4 cond-lines ?
... I would expect that I need 12 cond-lines in axlegroove.dat, is that correct ?

Correct.
Unless you want to also add cond-lines agaist the axle.dat primitive, instead of edges.
I have to look at the result before judging.

I have often tried to describe how to create good cond-lines. Maybe the wiki is the best place to gather the knowledge.
Is it possible to add some sort of video in the wiki? Or a animated gif? It is only when you start to rotate stuff the concept gets really understandable.

Edges and Cond-lined should allways use colour 24

[Jens Bauer]

I didn't calc anything.... I'm a more hands-on guy. Just grab and move.

I guess you're a hard-core 3D guy.

A text editor like LDDP and LDView as a viewer, are a good place to start editing

I'm currently using TextEdit (and nano) on Mac OS X. It may be a little harder than using the mouse, but it does give a good understanding on how things work.

I recommend LDPE from Nils Schmidt.
Both LDDP and LDPE have a good error varning system. (In LDDP just press F10, to run.)

I attempted to use LDPE yesterday, but failed - I'd have to spend some time in order to get the application running.

Today I downloaded Edger2 and fixed 50+ compile-errors, then it builds under g++. I'll contact the author and send him modifications, so that both Linux and Unix users can benefit from it.

In endcap.dat (and endcaph.dat), would I only need 4 cond-lines ?
... I would expect that I need 12 cond-lines in axlegroove.dat, is that correct ?

Correct.
Unless you want to also add cond-lines agaist the axle.dat primitive, instead of edges.
I have to look at the result before judging.

I was thinking about more cond-lines - since the end of the axle is actually rounded everywhere; but I'm not sure how far I should go.

I have often tried to describe how to create good cond-lines. Maybe the wiki is the best place to gather the knowledge.

I think so too; it's great to have one subject covered well on one page.
The LDraw pages I found before I started asking about cond-pages (including the documentation) gave me a fairly good understanding, but there were still many questions. As I know it's important to catch those questions for other users, I suggested a FAQ, which has already been put up by the awesome fast admins here. =)

Is it possible to add some sort of video in the wiki? Or a animated gif? It is only when you start to rotate stuff the concept gets really understandable.

I don't know for sure, but I think I've seen an animated gif on a wiki-page once.

Edges and Cond-lined should allways use colour 24

Excellent, I've stored that in my long-term memory.
I'm starting to feel like I'm able to make parts (I'm amazed how many errors I made this far, but someone might come across this thread and find useful information).

[Jens Bauer]

How did you calculate the last component (4.802) ?

I didn't calc anything.... I'm a more hands-on guy. Just grab and move.

If that's an approximation, it's a pretty good one!
I made this tool to help me correct such warped quads in the future.
It seems you were off only by 0.001!

[Jens Bauer]

I made 3 primitives for axles:
Axle Endcap
Axle Endcap with Hole
Axle Groove (now renamed)

I think I may have messed something up, because for some reason, LDView no longer downloads axlecaph.dat and axlegroove.dat.
Does anyone know what could cause this problem, so I can avoid it in the future ?

I do receive updates to endcap.dat and u9372 .. u9377, though.

[Max Martin Richter]

I'm not sure, but I thought LDView is only downloading parts from the server, if the requested part couldn't be found in any ldraw folder.
I hope you divided your libraries in an official and unofficial part. So you just need to delete the files, which needs to be reloaded, in the unofficial folder.

/Max

[Jens Bauer]

I'm not sure, but I thought LDView is only downloading parts from the server, if the requested part couldn't be found in any ldraw folder.
I hope you divided your libraries in an official and unofficial part. So you just need to delete the files, which needs to be reloaded, in the unofficial folder.

I tried that at first, then I re-downloaded the entire archive and extracted it to a new location, pointed LDView's directory there and ...
Still same behaviour.

The only parts I don't get are axlegroove.dat and axlecaph.dat (I do get axlecap.dat - with the new setup)

I'm thinking that I somehow did something that messed up things on the server.

[Travis Cobbs]

I'm not sure, but I thought LDView is only downloading parts from the server, if the requested part couldn't be found in any ldraw folder.
I hope you divided your libraries in an official and unofficial part. So you just need to delete the files, which needs to be reloaded, in the unofficial folder.

LDView by default won't check for a part more often than once every 7 days, both for missing parts and updated parts. What this means is that if it looks for a missing part and doesn't find it, it won't look again for that part for 7 days. Similarly, if it downloads a part from the parts tracker, it won't check to see if that part has updated on the parts tracker for 7 days. (And if it checks for an update and doesn't find an update, it similarly waits for 7 days before checking again.)

You can set these values to a minimum of 1 day on the "Updates" tab of LDView's preferences. Also, in Windows, you can force LDView to forget when it last checked by using regedit.exe to delete the HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Travis Cobbs\LDView\UnofficialPartChecks registry key. Note that these checks don't in fact track the LDraw directory you use, so if you switch back and forth between multiple LDraw directories, you can confuse it.

I think I'll add a button to have it forget download times for all parts. Furthermore, I might have it do that automatically if you manually change the LDraw directory.

[Jens Bauer]

LDView by default won't check for a part more often than once every 7 days, both for missing parts and updated parts. What this means is that if it looks for a missing part and doesn't find it, it won't look again for that part for 7 days. Similarly, if it downloads a part from the parts tracker, it won't check to see if that part has updated on the parts tracker for 7 days. (And if it checks for an update and doesn't find an update, it similarly waits for 7 days before checking again.)

You can set these values to a minimum of 1 day on the "Updates" tab of LDView's preferences. Also, in Windows, you can force LDView to forget when it last checked by using regedit.exe to delete the HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Travis Cobbs\LDView\UnofficialPartChecks registry key. Note that these checks don't in fact track the LDraw directory you use, so if you switch back and forth between multiple LDraw directories, you can confuse it.

This makes a lot of sense. -Now I understand.

This helped me on Mac OS X:

defaults read com.cobbsville.LDView | egrep 'axlegroove.*LastCheckTime'
defaults read com.cobbsville.LDView | egrep 'axlecaph.*LastCheckTime'
...
delete com.cobbsville.LDView "UnofficialPartChecks/axlegroove.dat/LastCheckTime"
defaults delete com.cobbsville.LDView "UnofficialPartChecks/axlecaph.dat/LastCheckTime"

-When switching location, wouldn't it be safest to just delete both .plist files and get a "fresh start" ?
(I can see that I have some old paths and new paths in the prefs).

I think I'll add a button to have it forget download times for all parts. Furthermore, I might have it do that automatically if you manually change the LDraw directory.

I agree completely on the 'autodetect' when switching to a different folder.
-I've noticed that LDView has different preference sets - can these be used for having for instance two different part locations ?

BTW: You've done a very good job on LDView.

[Steffen]

> You've done a very good job on LDView.

I also want to sing this song (again).
Everytime I use it I think that.
Thanks, Travis: a lot.

[Travis Cobbs]

-I've noticed that LDView has different preference sets - can these be used for having for instance two different part locations ?

No. The LDraw Directory setting is global (i.e., not connected to a preference set). If you look at the last paragraph of the "Specifying Preferences" section of LDView's help, you will see an explanation of what the "Global?" column in the preference sets list immediately following means. And if you look at the LDrawDir setting in that list, you will see that it is global.