Garry_rocks

I started from LDD and I think there is a difference between "illegal" and illegal. I mean there are rules for TLG designers and AFOL MOCers aren't bound by those. And then there are illegal things that are possible only with digital builds (completely disconnected sections, overlapping parts and floating bricks). I'm thinking that the first type should be ok in LDD since it's not a business tool for ordering your model as a set from Lego (as it was initially introduced). You can probably learn some connections from LDD and take it to real bricks, but most likely it's vice versa. LDD won't teach you how sturdy those connections are, how much friction is in those joints or how much weight can they support. If that's not the point of your attention, why bother about "illegal" connections everybody is using IRL anyway?.. Also I can show LOTS of illegal techniques emulated in LDD without triggering the famous "1k bricks were deleted from your model". Don't get me wrong, I know a workaround, I just wish there was an easier way to use this connection in LDD. But easy ways aren't for LDD users, are they?

I realize this is a major rule for TLG designers, but my question is why it also applies to AFOL users. LDD is officially abandoned by TLG for years now! I seriously doubt that anybody is using it to buy specific bricks without testing their model (or at least some connections) IRL beforehand. I see that type of connection in every other MOC and it's fine. Never heard anybody complaining about damaged studs. Well, I guess I'm asking too much... What about just one-stud parts? Not all of them can be connected and not all of technic parts allow that connection.

It's not because of some extra stress on the stud, otherwise single stud elements would become damaged too. It's because it'll be too hard for children to disconnect two parts with multiple "stud to technic hole" connections, like say 1x3 plate attached to the side of 1x4 technic brick. Are we still bound to "only 100% legal connections" rule in LDD?

I'd say I'm really interested in LDD to Blender converter, but I don't think it's usable for me in the current state. I wish there was a way to recreate LDD2POV-Ray functionality for next-gen rendering...

Is it possible to add "stud to technic hole" connectivity for all parts, not only for single stud ones?

How do you quantify advertisement? Why do companies invest in commercials if there's no way to ever find out how exactly this results in sales? LDD is an advertisement of sorts and all TLG had to do was to simply keep the database up to date. It was (and still is) a free application with lots of bugs and everything, but it got really popular among Lego fans. Let's face it: LDD isn't that good to pay for it. But it's a really nice commercial and I guess it'll have its effect when it's completely dead.

Yes, this! Every single word! However it gets really hard to not have all those fancy new parts available. Sad news.

I've noticed a problem with flexible chains, they have some strangely twisted links at times. Here's what it looks like: If you care to see the whole MOC, here's some more for you! This is initial BR image: And this is my edited image (mixed with POV-Ray): Also, I came across a post on a previous page from jonnysp about LDD to .obj converter (he had similar problems with flex parts), I even downloaded it, but it doesn't seem to do anything. No files are generated. I'm learning to use Blender and such a converter would be a really huge happening for me! Could somebody help me with it, please?

Thank you! Your rendering engine is really awesome, now more then ever before! I just can't stop making these animated images! But I actually see a model reassembled in that black window inbetween the sub-renders, isn't that the same thing called "parsing" happening there? For models with lots of parts this process is a huge problem as it can fail on my PC (apparently sometimes there's not enough heap space for Java). Anyway, thanks again for version 0005! Here are some more animations!

If BR=Bluerender and you say it looks terrible... Those are default settings that we all love about Bluerender. And read closely, they are meant to look different. Why else would I do several renders. I made them different to combine all three into a single image. https://www.flickr.com/photos/garry_rocks/21228886621/ You say that Bluerender works faster than we could ever get POV-Ray to work. I know that's not true, why should I go past this quietly? Big transparent objects are rare guests in my creations, also they still look much worse with standard Blurender settings, so I'd rather have them rendered in POV-Ray. And yeah, you're right, this is rather pointless.

Here are some examples. They are not really comparable since they were made different on purpose to get a "middle" ending result, but whatever. Mind that these images are 3840x2048. This model has over 7000 pieces. POV-Ray, visible bevels + OutdoorLQ radiosity and HDR lighting = 13 hours. Bluerender = a little less than 4 hours. POV-Ray, only LDD geometry + OutdoorLQ + HDR lighting = 26 minutes. No jokes. You keep saying that Bluerender is way too different, it's not. The settings are, and it'll take forever to find the same settings in POV-Ray. But it's not impossible. Bluerender slows down very much with the increased image resolution while POV-Ray mostly cares about radiosity settings and model complexity. Also try POV-Ray with no AA - it'll be even faster.

Well, you're not right at all. POV-Ray allows renders just as fast as Bluerender when it gets to high-resolution images. "No radiosity" (or OutdoorLQ) + "only LDD geometry" gives you approximately the same speed in POV-Ray. Yes, currently there is no such option in LDD2POV-Ray, but it's not something that cannot be done. Also I saw some of my models rendered with Blender. They look far more realistic than anything from POV-Ray or Bluerender and (from what I heard) they are really fast. Once again, I really like Bluerender and I like what it can do. But only as a supplement to my POV-Ray renders with "lower-than-usual" settings, not as a stand-alone program. I don't think I'll ever use an image solely from Bluerender as a main representation of my model, at least not with its current capabilities.

I was waiting for this! Very nice option indeed! It's a bit disappointing that in fact it is just a multiple render and that there are no simplifications to somehow speed up the process. It is still pretty quick for small image resolutions, so it's not a big deal.

I don't see any offence here. You just got it wrong. I used those default (example) settings to show that SunFlow works just the same way POV-Ray does and there are no big differences between these two. What was the greatest advantage of Bluerender? It was its speed. Enhanced settings like multiple light sources and advanced bricks geometry should make rendering time much longer. Plus all that fine tuning process and all of your additional manual work. The initial idea behind Bluerender was "instant render", that's why there are pretty much no settings in it. I'm just saying that LDD2POV-Ray is much better for those heavy, properly set up and detailed renders, while Bluerender is for quick and yet still nice pictures when you think that a simple screenshot is not enough, but don't want to mess with render too much. Most of the images in this topic were made with only default settings. Adding tons of settings might turn Bluerender into another LDD2POV-Ray with all the same problems in it. How can we ever compare POV-Ray to Bluerender if we're using incomparable settings for both? EDIT: Why don't you try LGEO, it was made specifically for renders, wan't it? I thought it has just the right "realistic" bricks we need for render.

I did some test renders using different types of lighting. All the alternative light sources were present in the initial scene file by msx80, so my own intrusion was minimal. Here's what I got with default (sunsky) lighting: The next one was using a directional light source. Looks kinda like POV-Ray with really low settings to me. And the last one was using that example of spherical light. And this one looks exactly like POV-Ray with no radiosity. Even those reflections of the light source are very similar. What was my point here? I tried to show that both SunFlow and POV-Ray have very close results when the settings are close. All of the difference is in the default settings that LDD2POV-Ray and Bluerender are using. The Bluerender has much more appealing default parameters, its materials are less shiny and reflective. This makes the images created in Bluerender look better than those from LDD2POV-Ray. And yet they don't look very photorealistic, not only because of the lack of bevels and logo on studs, but because of their cartoon-like bright palette. This is at least how I see it. I quite like Bluerender though, mixing it with low-quality POV-Ray renders gives really nice results and saves time.