(2016-10-06, 11:36)Willy Tschager Wrote: As for the edge the usual #333333 should be appropriate.

(2016-10-06, 21:10)Magnus Forsberg Wrote:

(2016-10-06, 11:36)Willy Tschager Wrote: As for the edge the usual #333333 should be appropriate.

Please create new edge colours for the alternative file too, ldcfgalt.ldr

(2016-10-13, 18:48)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: While we are working on LDConfig.ldr, I'd like to see RGB value of main color (16) to be changed to something more "visible" than current gray, which is very easy to confuse with Light Gray or LBG. See this discussion for more details... I suggest to use #ffff80, a color I use for years as default color for LDView.

Other opinions/suggestions?

(2016-10-14, 7:39)Max Martin Richter Wrote: This means, that I need to change my background from white to another colour too. :-)

(2016-10-13, 18:48)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: While we are working on LDConfig.ldr, I'd like to see RGB value of main color (16) to be changed to something more "visible" than current gray, which is very easy to confuse with Light Gray or LBG. See this discussion for more details... I suggest to use #ffff80, a color I use for years as default color for LDView.

Other opinions/suggestions?

Quote:It's close to Bright_Light_Yellow but I think being similar to Light_Gray is much worse. I'm fine with it.

Quote:How about LDView and DatHeader/LDFind/LDStructure?
I can't make them show that yellow colour.

Quote:Preview icons in Windows are still created grey by LDView.

(2016-10-12, 6:20)Willy Tschager Wrote: I'm fine with the name. As for the RGB I'd go with swooshable. Measuring the color in PS I get values close to [size=large]#FBE890[/size] (since it is a transparent part it is hard to figure out what is the gray background and what is overlay). As for the edge use #baab6a

w.

(2016-10-11, 18:50)Willy Tschager Wrote: I would love if you could help me out on this since I do not have any intention to get creative.

(2016-10-16, 11:05)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: I could do that if I would understand how to. I tried to recreate the edge colour from the examples above and failed.
Light colours should have darker edges, and darker colours have lighter edges. Right?

You said above "brightness is reduced by 25%". There is a big difference between "reduce by 25 percent" and "reduce by 25 percentage points"

Could you show me an online tool that could be used. I don't have Photoshop.

(2016-10-16, 11:05)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: What do you mean by "creative"? Are you telling me there is no ruling idea behind the alternative edge colours?

(2016-10-16, 7:34)Willy Tschager Wrote:

(2016-10-12, 6:20)Willy Tschager Wrote: I'm fine with the name. As for the RGB I'd go with swooshable. Measuring the color in PS I get values close to [size=large]#FBE890[/size] (since it is a transparent part it is hard to figure out what is the gray background and what is overlay). As for the edge use #baab6a

w.

Sven,

go ahead with this one.

w.

(2016-10-18, 15:42)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: It seems that there only exists one piece in this color. [color=#333333]Unfortunately there is no image of any part in this color by TLG . The only color information we have is from swooshable. The good thing is, that 295 is available as ldraw id. If we decide to use the swooshable color. Should we take "Bright Pink" as name?[/color]

(2016-10-18, 19:28)Willy Tschager Wrote:

(2016-10-18, 15:42)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: It seems that there only exists one piece in this color. [color=#333333]Unfortunately there is no image of any part in this color by TLG . The only color information we have is from swooshable. The good thing is, that 295 is available as ldraw id. If we decide to use the swooshable color. Should we take "Bright Pink" as name?[/color]

We've already got a Bright_Pink:

// LEGOID 222 - Light Purple
!COLOUR Bright_Pink CODE 29 VALUE[color=black] #E4ADC8

According to Swoosh this is a retired color so we should stick to Flamingo Pink.

w.
[/color]
[color=white]#333333[/color]

(2016-10-24, 19:00)Willy Tschager Wrote: The main problem is that we have a total mismatch between Lilac, Pink, Violet and Purple, but it cannot be solved without breaking the links to BL. I would therefore go with BLs "Medium Violet"

w.

(2016-10-25, 18:22)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote:

(2016-10-24, 19:00)Willy Tschager Wrote: The main problem is that we have a total mismatch between Lilac, Pink, Violet and Purple, but it cannot be solved without breaking the links to BL. I would therefore go with BLs "Medium Violet"

w.

May I asked why it would be a big issue to break/rework the links with BL if we could clean up stuff? 

So Long

Sven

(2016-10-27, 18:52)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: Ok, got it. Then let's go with Medium  Violet. What about the colors? Shall we go with Swooshable #564E9D?

So Long

Sven

(2016-10-28, 8:53)Willy Tschager Wrote:

(2016-10-27, 18:52)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: Ok, got it. Then let's go with Medium  Violet. What about the colors? Shall we go with Swooshable #564E9D?

So Long

Sven

Yepp, do so.

w.

(2016-10-29, 18:18)Philippe Hurbain Wrote: What I don't understand is that we have 3 different LEGO IDs (depending on source) for this color ??? (336/219/1003)

(2016-11-05, 9:23)Willy Tschager Wrote: According to our nomenclatura for "Royal" this becomes:
Trans_Light_Blue_Violet
The darker swooshable RGB is closer to the photostream but it's up to you.
w.

(2016-11-10, 14:17)Willy Tschager Wrote: [quote pid='23761' dateline='1478633447']
Well, here we go. As far as I know, this color does only exists in one single part. The good thing is, that the Ldraw ID 227 is free. Unfortunately we have three RGB values to choose from. Rebrickable already maps this color to Ldraw 35 (Trans Bright Green). Ldraw 35 is at the same time Lego ID 311 (Transparent Light green) which does fit better from my point of view.
So it's open for discussion how to deal with this one.

(2016-11-11, 11:04)Willy Tschager Wrote: Map it to a new color number and use the Swooshable RGB which come close to what I measure in PS.

w.

(2016-11-16, 8:26)Willy Tschager Wrote:

(2016-11-11, 11:04)Willy Tschager Wrote: Map it to a new color number and use the Swooshable RGB which come close to what I measure in PS.

w.

Go ahead.

w.

(2016-11-16, 19:07)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: Here's a new challenge. Only sparse information available. LDraw ID is free. I think the information from rebrickable is somehow wrong. I know for sure that "COPPER, DR.LA." is Lego ID 300. Therefore I wouldn't give much about the RGB value from Rebrickable. I would go with Swooshable. Also their Lego name does make more sense than mine. So I suggest to use LDraw ID 300 and for the name some speckle color. Speckle_Copper? But there is also a "Speckle_Black_Copper".

So Long

Sven

(2016-11-16, 23:20)Magnus Forsberg Wrote:

(2016-11-16, 19:07)Sven v. Beuningen Wrote: Here's a new challenge. Only sparse information available. LDraw ID is free. I think the information from rebrickable is somehow wrong. I know for sure that "COPPER, DR.LA." is Lego ID 300. Therefore I wouldn't give much about the RGB value from Rebrickable. I would go with Swooshable. Also their Lego name does make more sense than mine. So I suggest to use LDraw ID 300 and for the name some speckle color. Speckle_Copper? But there is also a "Speckle_Black_Copper".

So Long

Sven

No, it should be "Metallic_Copper". It's a metallic paint mainly used on patterned parts.
we already have
Lego Cool Silver Drum Laquer as LDraw Metallic_Silver
Lego  Warm Gold Drum Laquer as LDraw Metallic_Gold

I think #C47949 is too dark. To me its more like #DC9150

(2016-11-26, 15:48)Willy Tschager Wrote: If it's okay with you go with:

189 - Reddish Gold and use the swooshable RGB (rebrickable is too brownish). Don't forget to add a PEARLESCENT statement

w.