[Software] Blueprint, a building instruction generator for LDD

[kevin8]

No, there was no sarcasm, absolutey. Sorry you doubt it.

I rarely use submodels, but maybe it can be a good idea.

Initially I intended to reduce the number of steps on screen simultaneously, but making submodels, can be a useful way to solve little image of steps on screen.

Thanks again.

[___]

No, there was no sarcasm, absolutey. Sorry you doubt it.

I rarely use submodels, but maybe it can be a good idea.

Initially I intended to reduce the number of steps on screen simultaneously, but making submodels, can be a useful way to solve little image of steps on screen.

Thanks again.

OK then - good luck (looks like it's "me" once again)

[___]

PROBLEM

* BP does not fully respect grouping from LDD - it rearranging/dividing them to even smaller steps on its own decision which is quite a mess: that way one really cannot make BP doing steps as intended so he must rearranging them himself at the end after all once again anyway (or at least there is maybe some hidden settings I am not aware of)

Edited February 27, 2016 by bublible

[Zelgazra]

Hello. Was pointed to this thread by our friend Bublible here, from over on Brickpicker.com.

I'm working on my first MOC that I think I actually want to order parts for and build in real life. It's a ~1900 piece project of the Pont du Gard in southern France, so using LDD's instructions, well... fat chance, right?

I'm one of those MacOS users though. And a complete neanderthal when it comes to command line. Eagerly awaiting a Terminal work around [with step by step newb instructions] or an outright Mac release of this very fine looking app!

[kevin8]

Unluckily working by subgroup is not enough. Is there any way to zoom on steps preview while arranging instructions?

[pohatu]

Hi msx80,

First of all I would like to say your blueprint and bluerender is super awesome! I register into eurobricks just because of this thread. The "use shade" option in blueprint really improve the visual impact to be much more visible especially for white colored bricks. I can now directly tell the brik's dimension without squinting so much .

Just an idea for a better visual cue, maybe you can add these:

1. a parameter to adjust the outline thickness (normal and bold maybe?)

2. an option to change the 'new part' pink high light to be another color or maybe you can make the "previously assembled part" to become semi transparent and the new part to be solid?

This is especially helpful when making instruction with a lot of pink bricks to work with.

Sayonara and arigato!

[pohatu]

2. an option to change the 'new part' pink high light to be another color or maybe you can make the "previously assembled part" to become semi transparent and the new part to be solid?

[___]

2. an option to change the 'new part' pink high light to be another color or maybe you can make the "previously assembled part" to become semi transparent and the new part to be solid?

Yes - I am all for that (but the question is if it would be so easily implementable)!

Or maybe mixing that pink color with the trans previous step part (quite opposite/reversed to what it is now BUT I think it would be much more suitable/readable)...

Edited March 3, 2016 by bublible

[TomKraut]

I tried this yesterday and am absolutely blown away! It was rock stable for my little model (about 100 pieces) and although the workflow takes some getting used to, it is consistent so once you get into the mindset of how things work, rearranging parts and creating submodels is a breeze. Having a background in software development myself I know how much work must have gone into this and I would very much like to thank you for an amazing product!

Cheers

TomKraut

[PoisonofPhoenix]

Cant use it because when i extract the zip file my antivirus programm says its a virus and virtustotal found there something too https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/2cccb43c22fca98bdc65416b07a58c08a0155ecb73dd8232a8c12c313d5df458/analysis/1457689577/

[Nils_O]

Wow, that really looks like a very useful software.

I always wanted to have the submodel structure of LDD included in the building process of the instructions, but LDD just ignores it.

So this program (maybe with another highlight colour) would be perfect for me.

But I have to write "would be" bacause I#d need a working Mac version, too.

I thought that being based on Java that sholdn't be a problem, but I also know that OpenGL can be tricky...

Anyway, please keep on working on it, it really looks great!

[bacem]

i just updated LDD last night to version 4.3.9. and then today, i plan to open my current work in progress, to finish the instruction. but when i opened the model today, it gives error message, and don't want to open the model. is this means the current version of blueprint isn't compatible with LDD 4.3.9?

[msx80]

2. an option to change the 'new part' pink high light to be another color or maybe you can make the "previously assembled part" to become semi transparent and the new part to be solid?

The idea of "semi transparent previous assebmly" seems great at first and i even implemented it some time ago. The problem is that "semi transparent" with a white background equals "lighter", so the problem is that black looks like dark gray, dark gray looks like light gray, light gray looks like white. If you have some of those colors together, it gets impossible to tell what is new and which color it is (insert fifty shades of gray pun here). Ditto for other colors.

I can make the pink parameterizable, anyway.

I tried this yesterday and am absolutely blown away! It was rock stable for my little model (about 100 pieces) and although the workflow takes some getting used to, it is consistent so once you get into the mindset of how things work, rearranging parts and creating submodels is a breeze. Having a background in software development myself I know how much work must have gone into this and I would very much like to thank you for an amazing product!

Thank you very much :) Yeah it was quite an investment of time!

i just updated LDD last night to version 4.3.9. and then today, i plan to open my current work in progress, to finish the instruction. but when i opened the model today, it gives error message, and don't want to open the model. is this means the current version of blueprint isn't compatible with LDD 4.3.9?

You could have copied the error message, couldn't you? :) That's like #1 rule of error reporting :)

I have yet to try the new update, if it's just new geometries it should work ok, but perhaps they added some new mechanism too. I hope the file format isn't completely changed :P

Also, sorry everybody for not being present lately, i've been dealing with a different MOC (my newborn child :P) for the last months! (beside other projects around)

[___]

I have yet to try the new update, if it's just new geometries it should work ok, but perhaps they added some new mechanism too. I hope the file format isn't completely changed :P

Nicola, I have updated LDD yesterday and from what I saw in db folder that "mechanism" of geometries and stuff is still the same - they basically only added new bricks (geometries) and 1 new material (336), but I can be wrong, of course.

As for the semitrans suggestion: just make it semitrans with somewhat diffuse/constant material mixture = no shading and then unless a person is semiblind or posses at least IQ50 ( ) one should be able understand what is what I guess.

And as for the "parametrizable" pink: you definitely should...

[bacem]

You could have copied the error message, couldn't you? :) That's like #1 rule of error reporting :)

I have yet to try the new update, if it's just new geometries it should work ok, but perhaps they added some new mechanism too. I hope the file format isn't completely changed :P

sorry, i don't know how to copy text on the command system to here. i've tried normal copy and paste, but it's not working.

however, here's a screenshot:

would that help?

[msx80]

sorry, i don't know how to copy text on the command system to here. i've tried normal copy and paste, but it's not working.

however, here's a screenshot:

would that help?

No problem, thanks for the error! :) that's a pretty generic one but i suspect is for some updated brick. They probably splitted some brick in different parts to make it multicolored. If i understood correctly, the error appear when you reopen an old .blueprint file, right? If you reopen the original .LXF does it works? I'll look into it as soon as i have some time

[bacem]

No problem, thanks for the error! :) that's a pretty generic one but i suspect is for some updated brick. They probably splitted some brick in different parts to make it multicolored. If i understood correctly, the error appear when you reopen an old .blueprint file, right? If you reopen the original .LXF does it works? I'll look into it as soon as i have some time

thank you! yes, when i open the original lxf file, it gives me the exact same error message, so it is most likely a case with some updated bricks. i don't know which parts exactly however, nor have any idea which parts, as the parts that i uses on the model all are pretty generec parts, and none of them have ever came out in dual color on a set so far.

[msx80]

that's strange.. if it's not secret could you send me you LXF so that i have a test case?

[bacem]

that's strange.. if it's not secret could you send me you LXF so that i have a test case?

no, it's not really a secret. i plan to publish the instruction on my blog once it is done anyway. i will send it to you through PM.

edit: message sent.

Edited March 15, 2016 by bacem

[Bob De Quatre]

Some parts have been "exploded", like the 2x2 turntable.

I think the idea of "semi transparent previous assembly" is good, and if you already tried it, you should make it an available option. In some cases it ma be very useful.

[___]

Some parts have been "exploded", like the 2x2 turntable.

I think the idea of "semi transparent previous assembly" is good, and if you already tried it, you should make it an available option. In some cases it ma be very useful.

...and I fully agree on this with Bob, Nicola: it'd be nice if you at least allow users decide for themselves if they find it any useful or not, you know, not making it some "hardwired" kind of default not changeable option (like we have now) - maybe you could add something like GUI settings in option inside BluePrint's menu.

Edited March 15, 2016 by bublible

[___]

Some parts have been "exploded", like the 2x2 turntable.

That is because in previous version that 2x2 turntable was "one piece" but now it is as it should be, that is two separate pieces so I think (ehm, I actually did not test it, it's just an assumption) one have to re-edit his model adding the missing part to the turntable (if the problem is missing part)...

[pohatu]

The idea of "semi transparent previous assebmly" seems great at first and i even implemented it some time ago. The problem is that "semi transparent" with a white background equals "lighter", so the problem is that black looks like dark gray, dark gray looks like light gray, light gray looks like white. If you have some of those colors together, it gets impossible to tell what is new and which color it is (insert fifty shades of gray pun here). Ditto for other colors.

I can make the pink parameterizable, anyway.

Parameterizable pink will be great to have .

And if it's not too much to ask, an extra 'opacity parameter' option can be handy too. That way anyone can adjust color and opacity any way they see fit with their build.

Congratulation on your new born child!

[kevin8]

Same problem for me. Last version of LDD seems to be not fully compatible with Blueprint unluckily.

[msx80]

no, it's not really a secret. i plan to publish the instruction on my blog once it is done anyway. i will send it to you through PM.

edit: message sent.

Ok i gave it a quick look: in your case the problem was part 85984, it now has two surfaces but still uses a single "material" attribute in LXF. I'll correct by "spreading" the main color into the rest of the surfaces.

Same problem for me. Last version of LDD seems to be not fully compatible with Blueprint unluckily.

They could have tested integration a little better :D

If you have an example LXF, i can test it to see if it's the same problem. Send it this way :)