https://forums.ldraw.org/ Wed, 08 Apr 2026 03:30:57 +0000 MyBB https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-29354.html Sun, 25 Jan 2026 19:43:49 +0000 Amiiyah]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-29354.html
I wanted to know if you could have a list of the lego pieces, like in Bricklink's studio app. Where it shows you the list of pieces that aren't in the set. Or can be replaced.]]>
I wanted to know if you could have a list of the lego pieces, like in Bricklink's studio app. Where it shows you the list of pieces that aren't in the set. Or can be replaced.]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-29092.html Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:20:46 +0000 BBN]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-29092.html https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-29084.html Sun, 21 Sep 2025 04:51:22 +0000 tom alphin]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-29084.html
1. Are they actually the same size, or are they actually measurably different?
2. Even if they are ever-so-slightly different, is 0.4mm so small that almost nobody cares?
3. Does LDraw prefer technically accurate measurements, or is it generally preferred to nudge measurements ever-so-slightly to make the system work better together?

I would like to make my part naming both technically correct and consistent.
---Tom

LINK TO RELEVANT PARTS: https://brickarchitect.com/parts/categor...artstyle=1

P.S. Here are dumps of the part names across the relevant sites:

56904 (14mm wide)

• Brick Architect Long: 30mm D. × 14mm Wheel w/ Technic Axle Hole
  
• Brick Architect Short: 30mm D. × 14mm, Axle
  
• Bricklink: Wheel 30mm D. x 14mm
  
• Rebrickable: Wheel 30 x 14
  
• Brickset / LEGO.com: RIM NARROW Ø 30/14 W/ CROSS
  
• LDraw: Wheel Rim 14 x 30 with 6 Spokes and No Pegholes
  

42716 (20mm wide)

• Brick Architect Long: 30.4mm D. × 20mm Wheel w/ Technic Axle Hole, 5-Angled Spokes
  
• Brick Architect Short: 30.4mm D. × 20mm, Axle, 5-Spokes
  
• Bricklink: Wheel 30.4mm D. x 20mm with No Pin Holes and 5 Large Spokes
  
• Rebrickable: Wheel 30 x 20 5-Spoke
  
• Brickset / LEGO.com: RIM WIDE DIA.30X20 W/ CROSS HOLE, NO. 1
  
• LDraw: Wheel Rim 20 x 30 "Torq Thrust" with 5 Spokes and External Ribs
  

66155

• Brick Architect Long: 30.4mm D. × 20mm Wheel w/ Technic Axle Hole, Angled Spokes
  
• Brick Architect Short: 30.4mm D. × 20mm, Axle
  
• Bricklink: Wheel 30.4mm D. x 20mm with Center Axle Holes Motorcycle
  
• Rebrickable: Wheel 30 x 20 with Center Axle Holes
  
• Brickset / LEGO.com: RIM, WIDE, DIA. 30X20, W/ CROSS HOLE
  
• LDraw: Wheel Rim 30 x 20 with 3 Dual Angled Spokes and 4L Hub
  

]]>
1. Are they actually the same size, or are they actually measurably different?
2. Even if they are ever-so-slightly different, is 0.4mm so small that almost nobody cares?
3. Does LDraw prefer technically accurate measurements, or is it generally preferred to nudge measurements ever-so-slightly to make the system work better together?

I would like to make my part naming both technically correct and consistent.
---Tom

LINK TO RELEVANT PARTS: https://brickarchitect.com/parts/categor...artstyle=1

P.S. Here are dumps of the part names across the relevant sites:

56904 (14mm wide)

• Brick Architect Long: 30mm D. × 14mm Wheel w/ Technic Axle Hole
  
• Brick Architect Short: 30mm D. × 14mm, Axle
  
• Bricklink: Wheel 30mm D. x 14mm
  
• Rebrickable: Wheel 30 x 14
  
• Brickset / LEGO.com: RIM NARROW Ø 30/14 W/ CROSS
  
• LDraw: Wheel Rim 14 x 30 with 6 Spokes and No Pegholes
  

42716 (20mm wide)

• Brick Architect Long: 30.4mm D. × 20mm Wheel w/ Technic Axle Hole, 5-Angled Spokes
  
• Brick Architect Short: 30.4mm D. × 20mm, Axle, 5-Spokes
  
• Bricklink: Wheel 30.4mm D. x 20mm with No Pin Holes and 5 Large Spokes
  
• Rebrickable: Wheel 30 x 20 5-Spoke
  
• Brickset / LEGO.com: RIM WIDE DIA.30X20 W/ CROSS HOLE, NO. 1
  
• LDraw: Wheel Rim 20 x 30 "Torq Thrust" with 5 Spokes and External Ribs
  

66155

• Brick Architect Long: 30.4mm D. × 20mm Wheel w/ Technic Axle Hole, Angled Spokes
  
• Brick Architect Short: 30.4mm D. × 20mm, Axle
  
• Bricklink: Wheel 30.4mm D. x 20mm with Center Axle Holes Motorcycle
  
• Rebrickable: Wheel 30 x 20 with Center Axle Holes
  
• Brickset / LEGO.com: RIM, WIDE, DIA. 30X20, W/ CROSS HOLE
  
• LDraw: Wheel Rim 30 x 20 with 3 Dual Angled Spokes and 4L Hub
  

]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-29070.html Sun, 14 Sep 2025 13:54:42 +0000 Magnus Forsberg]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-29070.html
I'm reworking this sticker. It should have a transparent multi coloured print.


  transparent sticker.png (Size: 61.17 KB / Downloads: 7)

But, no matter how I try, using BFC Noclip, the colours are lost when I flip it over and look at it from the reverse side.]]>
I'm reworking this sticker. It should have a transparent multi coloured print.


  transparent sticker.png (Size: 61.17 KB / Downloads: 7)

But, no matter how I try, using BFC Noclip, the colours are lost when I flip it over and look at it from the reverse side.]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-29059.html Mon, 08 Sep 2025 12:53:47 +0000 Franklin W. Cain]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-29059.html https://bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalog...=61409#T=C

So why is this DAT file titled as being obsolete? 

Thanks, 
Franklin]]> https://bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalog...=61409#T=C

So why is this DAT file titled as being obsolete? 

Thanks, 
Franklin]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28995.html Sat, 09 Aug 2025 18:44:09 +0000 Orion Pobursky]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28995.html
Here's last year's slide show:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1...sp=sharing

This presentation is geared towards the vitual LEGO novice. Any feedback on things that might be worth including would be helpful.]]>
Here's last year's slide show:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1...sp=sharing

This presentation is geared towards the vitual LEGO novice. Any feedback on things that might be worth including would be helpful.]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28949.html Fri, 18 Jul 2025 20:23:43 +0000 Thore]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28949.html https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28826.html Sat, 17 May 2025 17:08:25 +0000 Chris Bongaarts]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28826.html
I've been enjoying building with LEGO since the late 70's, with a particular love of Classic Space.

LDraw is a delightfully nerdy application of all that is great about LEGO and the Internet.  I'm looking forward to participating!]]>
I've been enjoying building with LEGO since the late 70's, with a particular love of Classic Space.

LDraw is a delightfully nerdy application of all that is great about LEGO and the Internet.  I'm looking forward to participating!]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28794.html Sun, 27 Apr 2025 23:39:20 +0000 Andrewspyzilla]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28794.html https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28666.html Sun, 09 Feb 2025 15:58:45 +0000 Christoph Kubisch]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28666.html
a bit of a rambling post

curious if other people have attempted to improve the quality of the ldraw meshes through mesh processing.

Several meshes suffer from these:
* non-manifold edges & vertices (triangle edges share more than one neighbor)

* self-intersection
* disjoint surfaces. Sometimes triangles/quads are not sharing the same positions along edges, when they should. Often when triangle segments were stitched together to appear to be curved.
* t-junctions (because there is no proper ngon support)

As the tools back in the day weren't exactly great and hardware was limited by other means, it's understandable that the basic definition of the content today feels a bit dated. One alternative is to "properly" create the models through CAD or subdivision-surfaces as true solids. 

Which some people have done see https://grabcad.com/dk/models 
However that doesn't play nice with the ldraw ecosystem and accessibility. Mecabricks exported parts are not allowed to be redistributed, which also doesn't make them a solution.

It seems the typical approach in some ldraw apps and importers is to detect a few primitives and replace them with higher resolutions (cylinders, discs, etc.). However that may not always work well with adjoint surfaces that share spatial edges, but are not a primitive. Furthermore it doesn't cover other smooth surfaces.

Fixing things up in blender or other 3d tools after something has been converted to 3d meshes, seems like some key information is lost. Furthermore, 3d packages generalized solutions may not be the best fit to address the mesh problems.


My thinking is that one nice thing about ldraw is that it's fairly low-resolution, meaning on todays hardware one can brute force certain things to clean up the meshes. And tessellation algorithms can make use of the "edges" etc. to detect the intent. Some fixes could be done on the .ldr directly, like certain vertices snapped to other positions etc.

Compared to past
* there are robust open-source (no GPL etc.) mesh processing (booleans etc.), polygon triangulation... algorithms out there today
* due to 3d printing in general also more research in mesh cleanup for solids
* rendering hardware is a lot more capable
* much more CPU cores for processing... (and this has to happen only once).


so my question: has this been attempted before? how do others see the future of ldraw's mesh quality for rendering (maybe what I am describing isn't perceived as that desirable)? Is there interest among the programmers of importers/exporters/tools in the ldraw community to go in such a direction?

There seem to have been some threads on "modernizing" the spec and such, but they seem like decades ago, so I guess we can assume things stay as is and so the kind of automated processing is the only realistic option?]]>
a bit of a rambling post

curious if other people have attempted to improve the quality of the ldraw meshes through mesh processing.

Several meshes suffer from these:
* non-manifold edges & vertices (triangle edges share more than one neighbor)

* self-intersection
* disjoint surfaces. Sometimes triangles/quads are not sharing the same positions along edges, when they should. Often when triangle segments were stitched together to appear to be curved.
* t-junctions (because there is no proper ngon support)

As the tools back in the day weren't exactly great and hardware was limited by other means, it's understandable that the basic definition of the content today feels a bit dated. One alternative is to "properly" create the models through CAD or subdivision-surfaces as true solids. 

Which some people have done see https://grabcad.com/dk/models 
However that doesn't play nice with the ldraw ecosystem and accessibility. Mecabricks exported parts are not allowed to be redistributed, which also doesn't make them a solution.

It seems the typical approach in some ldraw apps and importers is to detect a few primitives and replace them with higher resolutions (cylinders, discs, etc.). However that may not always work well with adjoint surfaces that share spatial edges, but are not a primitive. Furthermore it doesn't cover other smooth surfaces.

Fixing things up in blender or other 3d tools after something has been converted to 3d meshes, seems like some key information is lost. Furthermore, 3d packages generalized solutions may not be the best fit to address the mesh problems.


My thinking is that one nice thing about ldraw is that it's fairly low-resolution, meaning on todays hardware one can brute force certain things to clean up the meshes. And tessellation algorithms can make use of the "edges" etc. to detect the intent. Some fixes could be done on the .ldr directly, like certain vertices snapped to other positions etc.

Compared to past
* there are robust open-source (no GPL etc.) mesh processing (booleans etc.), polygon triangulation... algorithms out there today
* due to 3d printing in general also more research in mesh cleanup for solids
* rendering hardware is a lot more capable
* much more CPU cores for processing... (and this has to happen only once).


so my question: has this been attempted before? how do others see the future of ldraw's mesh quality for rendering (maybe what I am describing isn't perceived as that desirable)? Is there interest among the programmers of importers/exporters/tools in the ldraw community to go in such a direction?

There seem to have been some threads on "modernizing" the spec and such, but they seem like decades ago, so I guess we can assume things stay as is and so the kind of automated processing is the only realistic option?]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28625.html Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:58:26 +0000 Andreas Hinz]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28625.html
I've been searching for a while to find an answer to my question, but unfortunately without any success. So I would like to try here.

I'm doing my digital builds (technic models) with LDCad and after that I'm generating the concerning building instructions in Studio. In some cases I need to modify one or the other brick by using Studio Part Designer. After doing this I would like to use these bricks (or liftarms or whatever) in LDCad. I now found out, when I go this way and export the modified part to LDCad the "inner" connectivities get lost. That means, there is no part snapping to pinholes or axleholes and so on. Part snapping to studs, axles and pins still work.

Did anyone experience the same issue and might be able to give me some hints how to solve that problem?

Sunny greetings from Bremen]]>
I've been searching for a while to find an answer to my question, but unfortunately without any success. So I would like to try here.

I'm doing my digital builds (technic models) with LDCad and after that I'm generating the concerning building instructions in Studio. In some cases I need to modify one or the other brick by using Studio Part Designer. After doing this I would like to use these bricks (or liftarms or whatever) in LDCad. I now found out, when I go this way and export the modified part to LDCad the "inner" connectivities get lost. That means, there is no part snapping to pinholes or axleholes and so on. Part snapping to studs, axles and pins still work.

Did anyone experience the same issue and might be able to give me some hints how to solve that problem?

Sunny greetings from Bremen]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28554.html Sat, 21 Dec 2024 16:44:33 +0000 CoeAdam]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28554.html
Packing LDraw models
To pack a model with all its referenced files, download the Official LDraw parts library and use the following Node script: utils/packLDrawModel.js It contains instructions on how to setup the files and execute it.

However, both the link to the parts library and the link to the packLDrawModel script are 404 errors. Does anyone know how to create a packed LDraw file?]]>
Packing LDraw models
To pack a model with all its referenced files, download the Official LDraw parts library and use the following Node script: utils/packLDrawModel.js It contains instructions on how to setup the files and execute it.

However, both the link to the parts library and the link to the packLDrawModel script are 404 errors. Does anyone know how to create a packed LDraw file?]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28535.html Mon, 09 Dec 2024 11:52:37 +0000 BBN]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28535.html https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28496.html Thu, 07 Nov 2024 09:52:05 +0000 BBN]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28496.html https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28492.html Wed, 06 Nov 2024 07:25:49 +0000 Peter Blomberg]]> https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-28492.html
Part moulds change over time as LEGO improves their designs. This leads to parts having relatively minor differences in their shapes. Sometimes this affects functionality, but often not.

When it comes to underside reinforcements, is it a detail that can be ignored or would you like to see all individual variants for the same part modeled in LDraw? Is it sufficient for you to have one variant in your digital part library or would you like to have all variants?]]>
Part moulds change over time as LEGO improves their designs. This leads to parts having relatively minor differences in their shapes. Sometimes this affects functionality, but often not.

When it comes to underside reinforcements, is it a detail that can be ignored or would you like to see all individual variants for the same part modeled in LDraw? Is it sufficient for you to have one variant in your digital part library or would you like to have all variants?]]>