Parts we are Working on - Part Deux

[Gerald Lasser]

I'm working on the orange torso from the set 60222.
Does anybody have the scan?
This is what I have done so far:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qh92m2I...sp=sharing

Brickset has a decent picture on their review
https://brickset.com/article/42155/revie...ow-groomer
https://www.flickr.com/photos/brickset/4...otostream/

[Bruno Altmann]

Brickset has a decent picture on their review
https://brickset.com/article/42155/revie...ow-groomer
https://www.flickr.com/photos/brickset/4...otostream/

Thank you again Gerald.
This is what I got.
But I am not sure about the colors. On the imagens the grey seens more bluish.
I think the leather belt color is close, but it's kinda hard to find the colors.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VtFBflV...sp=sharing
Edit:
Here are the snow groomer operator torso and the skier torso:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zBxO7-R...sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KZvQkmB...sp=sharing
Man, that was hard. I'm tired of watching triangles hahahahahahaha
Next I will try doing the skier head I think.

[Willy Tschager]

Hi Bruno,

this is a good start for the first part. Are you going to upload it to the PT?

There are things which should be fixed prior upload:

* These vertices should be on the same line. We author the pattern in an "ideal" state, which means we correct misalignment and small errors which clearly come from the printing:

2 4 11.024 .838 -10 -11.498 .824 -10
2 4 17.356 31.567 -10 -17.586 31.428 -10

* There are color gaps which should be closed:

3 1 6.766 .908 -10 6.061 1.634 -10 6.508 1.215 -10
4 1 5.993 4.789 -10 5.98 4.817 -10 6.359 4.635 -10 6.522 4.524 -10
3 1 6.563 4.524 -10 6.522 4.524 -10 6.359 4.635 -10


* Superfluous vertices:

4 14 16.515 24.293 -10 16.447 24.265 -10 16.502 24.712 -10 16.529 24.335 -10
4 14 16.529 24.265 -10 16.095 22.702 -10 16.447 24.265 -10 16.515 24.293 -10
4 14 16.529 24.265 -10 16.515 24.293 -10 16.529 24.335 -10 16.936 24.335 -10


* and too much detail:

2 10 4.556 20.007 -10 4.569 19.965 -10
2 10 6.617 16.74 -10 6.658 16.782 -10
2 10 4.515 7.944 -10 4.529 7.958 -10
2 10 4.963 5.291 -10 4.895 5.319 -10
2 10 -.488 9.997 -10 -.461 10.024 -10


* LDPE says "Collinear vertices" but I suggest to load the pattern into LDPC and correct the errors there.

w.

[Gerald Lasser]

BB has some pretty good pictures of new parts coming with the new X-Wings and Tie Fighter
https://www.brothers-brick.com/2020/12/0...er-review/

Does anybody already have a number for them?

And I think we need new Prims for this type of Axle hole

- Technic Brick 1 x 1 with Axle Hole
- Technic Brick 1 x 2 with 1 x 2 Plate (2)
- Plate 6 x 6 with 5 Pinholes centred
- Brick (?) 3 x 3 Round with recessed studs

   

[Orion Pobursky]

When I saw that post I was wondering how long it would take someone to do this 2.

[Philippe Hurbain]

Does anybody already have a number for them?

And I think we need new Prims for this type of Axle hole

No number here...
Why a new prim? looks like a plain axlehole to me! I see no significant difference compared to a Technic 1x2 with axlehole.

[Magnus Forsberg]

No number here...
Why a new prim? looks like a plain axlehole to me! I see no significant difference compared to a Technic 1x2 with axlehole.

The 1x1 brick with axle hole doesn't have an internal bottom. I agree with that we dont have a suitable primitive.

[Philippe Hurbain]

The 1x1 with axle hole doesn't have an internal bottom. I agree with that we dont have a suitable primitive.

A new prim for a single part???
...speaking of that, I had a close look at my collection of 1x2 with axlehole. 4 different types! (and none of them match our 32064a!!!)

   
   
From left to right:

• axlehole with slight asymmetry (axl3hole), completely enclosed and middle stud3
  
• axlehole with strong asymmetry (axl2hole), completely enclosed and middle stud3
  
• symmetrical axlehole, slightly elongated, sides open in brick, bottom ribs (no, the ribs don't hold an axle)
  
• symmetrical axlehole (axl2hole), sides open in brick and middle stud3.
  

My relatively recent Boost set contains 3 of those types!!! (missing type is the axl2hole one).

[Magnus Forsberg]

I didn't say we need a new primitive.

[Philippe Hurbain]

I didn't say we need a new primitive.

Re-reading, indeed

[Gerald Lasser]

I think we used the standard hole for such holes before.

The round brick has the same hole on the bottom.

@Magnus, yes, the 1 x 1 brick is open

Rest is also done:
   

[SNIPE]

I think we used the standard hole for such holes before.

The round brick has the same hole on the bottom.

@Magnus, yes, the 1 x 1 brick is open

Rest is also done:

WOOP LEGOLEGOLEGOLEGOLEGOLEGOLEGO

Thanks guys, these are cool parts, what is that 6x6 tile thing?, I somehow missed that

[Magnus Forsberg]

I think we used the standard hole for such holes before.

???

Rest is also done:

Looks like you made a new axlehole...

[Gerald Lasser]

???


Looks like you made a new axlehole...

I meant that we used the AXLEHOLE prim for sightly rounded holes.

Yes, for the meantime I used a new one, based on AXL3HOLE, for the final part I am not sure if I should go with our symmetrical one, AXLEHOLE, AXL3HOLE or a new instance

[Philippe Hurbain]

I meant that we used the AXLEHOLE prim for sightly rounded holes.

Yes, for the meantime I used a new one, based on AXL3HOLE, for the final part I am not sure if I should go with our symmetrical one, AXLEHOLE, AXL3HOLE or a new instance

Imho it's a standard AXLEHOLE symmetrical hole. If we choose to round it, AXLEHOLE should be reworked in all parts in order to solve the old collision issue with R4 bars. And of course AXL2HOLE and AXL3HOLE should be updated too. Huge task to verify all parts containing them

[Magnus Forsberg]

I meant that we used the AXLEHOLE prim for sightly rounded holes.

Yes, for the meantime I used a new one, based on AXL3HOLE, for the final part I am not sure if I should go with our symmetrical one, AXLEHOLE, AXL3HOLE or a new instance

I'm in favor of a new primitive, since the old AXLEHOLE prim is incorrect,  Its derivative axlehol8 is even bfc inverse.
Many of the complete axlehole shortcut primitives contain to many edgelines and can't be used because of that.

IMHO we should obsolete the whole AXLEHOLE family, and force new parts to use a more correct design.

[Magnus Forsberg]

IMHO we should obsolete the whole AXLEHOLE family, and force new parts to use a more correct design.

I made this investigation in the beginning of the this year.

I think the biggest issue is that we can't obsolete, or rework these AXLEHOLE primitives, since they are used both as AXLE primitives and as AXLEHOLE primitives. Some need to become ~Move to axleXXX.dat primitives, and some need to be reworked.

[Bruno Altmann]

Hi Bruno,

this is a good start for the first part. Are you going to upload it to the PT?

There are things which should be fixed prior upload:

* These vertices should be on the same line. We author the pattern in an "ideal" state, which means we correct misalignment and small errors which clearly come from the printing:

2 4 11.024 .838 -10 -11.498 .824 -10
2 4 17.356 31.567 -10 -17.586 31.428 -10

* There are color gaps which should be closed:

3 1 6.766 .908 -10 6.061 1.634 -10 6.508 1.215 -10
4 1 5.993 4.789 -10 5.98 4.817 -10 6.359 4.635 -10 6.522 4.524 -10
3 1 6.563 4.524 -10 6.522 4.524 -10 6.359 4.635 -10


* Superfluous vertices:

4 14 16.515 24.293 -10 16.447 24.265 -10 16.502 24.712 -10 16.529 24.335 -10
4 14 16.529 24.265 -10 16.095 22.702 -10 16.447 24.265 -10 16.515 24.293 -10
4 14 16.529 24.265 -10 16.515 24.293 -10 16.529 24.335 -10 16.936 24.335 -10


* and too much detail:

2 10 4.556 20.007 -10 4.569 19.965 -10
2 10 6.617 16.74 -10 6.658 16.782 -10
2 10 4.515 7.944 -10 4.529 7.958 -10
2 10 4.963 5.291 -10 4.895 5.319 -10
2 10 -.488 9.997 -10 -.461 10.024 -10


* LDPE says "Collinear vertices" but I suggest to load the pattern into LDPC and correct the errors there.

w.

Thank you very much for the help. I will fix this problems.

Sadly I can't upload the parts because I FU when I created my account (put an white space in my user name). The white spaces cause some kind of bug on the software that checks the headers of the files.
I think I will create a new e-mail and create a new account with an username without spaces.

[Bruno Altmann]

Hey guys. What do you think about this torso?
Should I put the patterns on their own files?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TLj-dxe...sp=sharing

[Gerald Lasser]

WOOP LEGOLEGOLEGOLEGOLEGOLEGOLEGO

Thanks guys, these are cool parts, what is that 6x6 tile thing?, I somehow missed that

That comes with the new Tie Fighter

Also some new interesting Technic Beams:

from: https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.p...ing-later/

Seems like some new prims are required for those

[Philippe Hurbain]

...was going to model them as soon as I get the design number

[Philippe Hurbain]

...was going to model them as soon as I get the design number

And I just got it: 71710

[Gerald Lasser]

I already got it done..., I did not see your reply



There's a lot of new Technic parts coming along!

The Ferrari has two more panels and a rim

The Offroader and the Jeep have new tires.

Great :-)

Edit: I added the part, please check :-)

[Philippe Hurbain]

No problem, not really started! I would have been more radical with T-junctions, but you know me
Otherwise, end of beam should be modeled with standard beam width (and a step near 2nd hole), see attached photo.

The Ferrari has two more panels and a rim

Which panels? must have missed a review...

[Gerald Lasser]

No problem, not really started! I would have been more radical with T-junctions, but you know me
Otherwise, end of beam should be modeled with standard beam width (and a step near 2nd hole), see attached photo.

Concerning the TJ, I thought so :-)
I noticed the step as well, but that picture is good, I will model it accordingly, so 18 x 20 at the ends and 20x20 in the middle

Which panels? must have missed a review...

The Ferrari has a shorter Lambo Arch and an extension for this arch. The BB review has some good pictures, though not really good to do the parts.
https://www.brothers-brick.com/2020/12/1...51-review/

[Philippe Hurbain]

The Ferrari has a shorter Lambo Arch and an extension for this arch. The BB review has some good pictures, though not really good to do the parts.
https://www.brothers-brick.com/2020/12/1...51-review/

Ah the arches... the photos are very good, just missing an exact side view for precise dimensions! Extension is fairly interesting...
I guess you've done this one https://www.brothers-brick.com/2020/12/1...review-32/ ? Don't have the part number...

[Philippe Hurbain]

I noticed the step as well, but that picture is good, I will model it accordingly, so 18 x 20 at the ends and 20x20 in the middle

Side close up...

[Gerald Lasser]

Ah the arches... the photos are very good, just missing an exact side view for precise dimensions! Extension is fairly interesting...
I guess you've done this one https://www.brothers-brick.com/2020/12/1...review-32/ ? Don't have the part number...

You guessed right :-D it is done as well, waiting for a design ID

[Philippe Hurbain]

You guessed right :-D it is done as well, waiting for a design ID

Should get it tonight...

[Philippe Hurbain]

Should get it tonight...

Part number is 71708!

[Philippe Hurbain]

Working on buggy tyre!

[Philippe Hurbain]

Starting Ferrari wheel arches!

[Magnus Forsberg]

I'm working on these two, from the set 60288.


  69963_40.jpg (Size: 35.13 KB / Downloads: 718)   
  69964_40.jpg (Size: 21.76 KB / Downloads: 722)

[Takeshi Takahashi]

I've created the stickers from sheet 4650854 in set 3185 Summer Riding Camp.
   

The patterns are printed on a silver mirror sheet and I am wondering which color should be used, 80 metallic silver or 383 chrome silver.
The color regulation says: "In general, metallic colours on stickers, patterned parts, and other printed materials should use the LDraw Metallic Colours and not Chrome or Pearl colours. There are exceptions that will be handled on a case by case basis."
https://www.ldraw.org/article/512.html#colours

For the sticker piece 4650854h, the silver is functional as a mirror, thus I've used color 383 similar to the other mirror sticker 4614425b.
It is a sufficient reason for an exception, I think.
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c...14425b.dat

However, the silver in other pieces 4650854a-g and 4650854i-o is only a decorative purpose.
I've complied with the regulation and used color 80 but got hold.
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.c...50854a.dat

I think the solution is either the following two:
(A) Apply the exception to the entire sticker sheet 4650854 and use color 383 (better reproduction of real part)
(B) Observe the regulation as much as we can, and retain using color 80 for decorative pieces

The similar problem comes with sticker sheet 4620858 in set 3187 Butterfly Beauty Shop, and more.

Thanks,
Takeshi

[Orion Pobursky]

I believe we've used Chrome Silver for similar stickers.

[Philippe Hurbain]

I believe we've used Chrome Silver for similar stickers.

Yes. Color 80 is used for plain, diffusing printed silver, but when sticker really acts as a mirror (even if it's not the intended usage), 383 chrome silver is the right choice. The point is to have the best possible visual appearance.

See eg. https://www.ldraw.org/parts/official-par...id=197295a

[Takeshi Takahashi]

Thanks Orion and Philo.
I've understood why Magnus made hold vote and I agree that reproducing better color than sticking to the regulation.
The color 80 metallic silver is apparently different from the mirror sheet (I've found that color in 76371pb080 and 87552pb058 from my daughter's brick box).

[Magnus Forsberg]

Yes, this is the right way. The ldconfig file not only contain rgb values, but also other properties of the colour.

The spec state "There are exceptions that will be handled on a case by case basis."
Metalized plastic stickers with a chrome looking finish is one such exception, and should use 383.

[SNIPE]

I'm working on these two, from the set 60288.

  

hmm which set is this? its not on bricklink so I assume is a brand new or upcoming set and those parts are the new steering axle bricks

[Gerald Lasser]

hmm which set is this? its not on bricklink so I assume is a brand new or upcoming set and those parts are the new steering axle bricks

2021 Set: Race Buggy Transporter
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/race-...rter-60288

[Magnus Forsberg]

Yes.
It's some sort of mechanical springloaded, return-to-center, tilt steering wheel axle.
The axles move in opposite directions when the whole vehicle is tilted.
Part number 69963 and 69964.

[Magnus Forsberg]

I'm working on these two, from the set 60288.

I must have made a mistake in the beginning, an now the pivot axle is in the wrong place. Crap!
I'll have to figure out where it went wrong.

[Magnus Forsberg]

Merry Xmas to you all.

I have a mystery for someone to solve. I'm totaly stuck.
When I look and meassure this part I only find straight lines, 90 and 45 degree angles. Thus the centre point of  the axle must be at 20,20,0, where the 2 red lines intersect.

  69963_40_lines.jpg (Size: 61.86 KB / Downloads: 618)

But when a try to build a structure of real parts around it, the center point of the wheelpin ends up at y=22
     
  mock-up-ldcad-60.jpg (Size: 34.8 KB / Downloads: 679)

So, where do they come from?

[Philippe Hurbain]

Merry Christmas too (and everybody here )
Maybe it's only caused by perspective deformation, and I don't know if this solves the missing 2ldu issue, but I have the feeling that the wheels pins are NOT centered on central bar hole...

[Magnus Forsberg]

... but I have the feeling that the wheels pins are NOT centered on central bar hole...

I thought so too, but regardless of an offset, or not, it would only move the wheelpins along the 45 degree line.
It needs to be moved along the vertical line.

[Gerald Lasser]

I thought so too, but regardless of an offset, or not, it would only move the wheelpins along the 45 degree line.
It needs to be moved along the vertical line.

Or should the wheel-pins be in line with part 4600?

i.e. like in your file put 4600 like this:
1 1 20 16 0 0 0 -1 0 1 0 1 0 0 4600.dat

[Magnus Forsberg]

Or should the wheel-pins be in line with part 4600?

Dang it, I think you're right! Now I have a way forward.

I made the physical mockup, and then assumed those parts (4600, 21445, 4488) would have the wheelpins at y=22 , but they are at y=21.
There's an awful amount of play in this tilt axle assembly. I think it must be true.

Thank you, Gerald.

[Magnus Forsberg]

Here is a model of the buggy in set 60288, using these tilt steering wheel axles.
   
The axles are rotated +/- 6.5 degrees, and then the whole vehicle is rotated ~5 degrees to be horizontal again.

[Gerald Lasser]

BB Posted a review of the huge Ninjago set, where the escalator chain links are in. And the review came with good pictures.

There are a lot of similarities with 57518 and 88323

The one existing sub-part 57518s01 contains a bit too much to be reused, so I split it further, added a s02, s03 and a 69900s01 to complete the party.

[Gerald Lasser]

I am working on the rear mudguard of the Porsche.

If anybody has details on the slope (which I loosely modeled after the 1 x 10 Curved slope) I apprechiate a hi res scan or orthogonal picture!

It is a nice challenge for Pathtruder Always fun to tweak the start and end shapes.

  Porsche.PNG (Size: 29.65 KB / Downloads: 619)