Hmmm... it seems really mixed. I do understand both parties. There are things that you can't really get digitally. On the other hand... like Erik Leppen said, it's so much easier to get a drivetrain right. Just move parts around a bit without the need to change/rebuild the structure keeping it in place.

I guess I will be doing a little bit of both. Though, this CAD programs are a bit of a drag... there are sooooo many parts! I guess it will take a little while to get comfortable with this too. :)

Thanks for all the answer so far. And for all the tips on software and places to buy parts. Though I found the LEGO site to be a bit restrictive in the amount of different bits they offer for Technic. :(

//swegoof

All my Unimog attachments are hand built, I am planning on also making them in LDD one day.

  On 4/9/2016 at 7:03 AM, swegoof said:

Hmmm... it seems really mixed. I do understand both parties. There are things that you can't really get digitally. On the other hand... like Erik Leppen said, it's so much easier to get a drivetrain right. Just move parts around a bit without the need to change/rebuild the structure keeping it in place.

I guess I will be doing a little bit of both. Though, this CAD programs are a bit of a drag... there are sooooo many parts! I guess it will take a little while to get comfortable with this too. :)

Thanks for all the answer so far. And for all the tips on software and places to buy parts. Though I found the LEGO site to be a bit restrictive in the amount of different bits they offer for Technic. :(

//swegoof

The amount of technic parts available on Pick a Brick is quite limited. Bricks&Pieces, which can be found on the Lego Service page, has almost all Technic Pieces that are in production today available.

Edited April 9, 20168 yr by HallBricks

In my case, I always build physically. It helps to realize the MOC works properly under the real condition of gravity influence. I think that means a lot to Technic models.

Another reason is just I'm not good at handling digital files.

I do both, at the same time. Laptop on the floor surrounded by loads of beams and stuff. The best combination of being able to rip a structure apart without actually doing so, and seeing if something works for reals. It makes chronicling builds much easier too, because I will already have some of the concepts digitally available.

I build only physically, but first I google and stare real-life pictures of something what I want to build and I have always pictures on computer screen when I build but no plans or designs except in my head Just do and redo, make and remake, learning from my own errors, lots of effort and work. Bricklink is also my favorite place to order parts and some times hole, used sets.

Ok, this wasn't really an easy question to answer, or, it was easy to answer, but we really all have a bit different approaches. :)

I do appreciate all the replies and tips I got.

@HallBricks: I feel a bit ashamed that I actually could miss Bricks&Pieces at the lego site. Thanks!

//swegoof

I am pure 100% physically builder and hate digitalbricks .

Lucky that my good buddy JunkstyleGio loved LDD

LDD enables me to explore many ideas/geometries before I get to the actual parts. With LDD it is very easy to make modifications to the design, especially when you have intricate assemblies. One point I must stress: If you're going the LDD route, you must learn to use groups. These enable you to create sub-assemblies and bring them together, or even later take them apart, one sub-system at a time. Very powerful.

I enjoy building digital most of the time to visual certain sections of something im building, and it's a lot easier to change a gear combination digitally then physical. Example being i just changed the clutch gear in 42043 to a regular 24 tooth gear. But physically building allows me to build with a limited supply, and forces me to use the parts I have and not go buy more parts online. Both have there upsides.

  On 4/12/2016 at 12:42 AM, DrJB said:

LDD enables me to explore many ideas/geometries before I get to the actual parts. With LDD it is very easy to make modifications to the design, especially when you have intricate assemblies. One point I must stress: If you're going the LDD route, you must learn to use groups. These enable you to create sub-assemblies and bring them together, or even later take them apart, one sub-system at a time. Very powerful.

Yes, I saw that you could do that. So I agree, that's the way to go. Now, I just hope I make groups that make sense. I haven't explored it yet, but I guess that you might be able to groups a couple of groups!? I'll see.

  On 4/12/2016 at 1:22 AM, andrewganschow said:

I enjoy building digital most of the time to visual certain sections of something im building, and it's a lot easier to change a gear combination digitally then physical. Example being i just changed the clutch gear in 42043 to a regular 24 tooth gear. But physically building allows me to build with a limited supply, and forces me to use the parts I have and not go buy more parts online. Both have there upsides.

Yepp, that is one big advantage, replace or rearrange a design can be so much quicker and easy in some cases. Or try bricks that you just don't own yet. My biggest "fear", is that I will start buying bricks online like crazy... :)

//swegoof

I know this isn't the correct way of asking for help. But I'm not yet allowed to PM or view the members listing...

  On 4/8/2016 at 9:14 PM, HallBricks said:

2. I use LDraw and SR3D when building virtually, even though I am a Mac user, so that forces me to have Windows installed. I have tried out the Mac version of LDraw but I feel like I'll never get used to Bricksmith's interface, I think SR3D and MLcad are much better.

I'm wondering about what version of Windows you are running your SR3D installation? I'm trying it with Windows 7 and I'm not able to get it running. I keep getting an exception on .NET framework. I have updated with the latest patches. I think I'm missing something. :(

Maybe anybody else that has it running can give me some tips?

TIA

//swegoof

I wouldn't trust certain kinds of designs in digital because the parts are not the same when you actually build it.. For example if you put 9 perpendicular connectors side by side on a 9L axle, they will not line up exactly with a 9L liftarm, but they do in digital.. This can cause issues when building gearboxes and such.. One of the reasons why I try to avoid using connecters with liftarms for transmissions, unless I can be certain that everything will stay in proper form..

Edited April 13, 20168 yr by Paul Boratko

  On 4/13/2016 at 1:32 PM, swegoof said:

I know this isn't the correct way of asking for help. But I'm not yet allowed to PM or view the members listing...

I'm wondering about what version of Windows you are running your SR3D installation? I'm trying it with Windows 7 and I'm not able to get it running. I keep getting an exception on .NET framework. I have updated with the latest patches. I think I'm missing something. :(

Maybe anybody else that has it running can give me some tips?

TIA

//swegoof

I have SR3D installed on both Windows XP and Windows 7, It works well on both of them. I installed the Windows 7 version probably more than one year ago and I don't remember there were any problems. Unfortunately I don't know how to fix that problem since I mostly am a Mac user and don't know so much about the Windows OS. According to the SR3D website you should probably try to update your Microsoft DirectX driver, but thats all i know. Hope that can help you :)

  On 4/13/2016 at 3:01 PM, HallBricks said:

I have SR3D installed on both Windows XP and Windows 7, It works well on both of them. I installed the Windows 7 version probably more than one year ago and I don't remember there were any problems. Unfortunately I don't know how to fix that problem since I mostly am a Mac user and don't know so much about the Windows OS. According to the SR3D website you should probably try to update your Microsoft DirectX driver, but thats all i know. Hope that can help you :)

Thanks for the reply. I have tried to do that, also fiddle with the .NET versions a bit, nothing helps. I'm more of a Linux/Mac user myself, so it was a long time since I played with Windows. :) But maybe it's because I'm trying to run it in as a virtual machine in VirtualBox!? I guess I will put that project on hold for now. :(

//swegoof

  On 4/13/2016 at 1:40 PM, Paul Boratko said:

I wouldn't trust certain kinds of designs in digital because the parts are not the same when you actually build it.. For example if you put 9 perpendicular connectors side by side on a 9L axle, they will not line up exactly with a 9L liftarm, but they do in digital.. This can cause issues when building gearboxes and such.. One of the reasons why I try to avoid using connecters with liftarms for transmissions, unless I can be certain that everything will stay in proper form..

Very good point. I did an LDD of Nico's tracked vehicle recently and found out that the track elements do not always come aligned. There is so much lateral gap/play that, after you attch them, the holes won't line up any more. I ended up using some 'scaffolding' to align the tracks ... not easy and rather painful. Just another example of the limitations of LDD/digital. The two (physical/virtual) go hand in hand and are thus 'complementary'.

  On 4/13/2016 at 1:40 PM, Paul Boratko said:

I wouldn't trust certain kinds of designs in digital because the parts are not the same when you actually build it.. For example if you put 9 perpendicular connectors side by side on a 9L axle, they will not line up exactly with a 9L liftarm, but they do in digital.. This can cause issues when building gearboxes and such.. One of the reasons why I try to avoid using connecters with liftarms for transmissions, unless I can be certain that everything will stay in proper form..

This is the reason why I don't like stacked beam builds, especially in chassis.

Funny thing is that LDD is unforgiving with collisions, yet there are situations where it's much more forgiving with collisions than real building. There was a situation when something was easily accepted by LDD yet I didn't dare to try it in real life because I could see the two parts intersecting by quite an amount.

Many wise things have already been said here. Being someone who only recently came out of his dark age, I thought it might be useful to share some of my experiences. I started off with LDD instead of real bricks and I can tell you I did hit into a few pitfalls:

- In LDD everything 'feels' rigid and sturdy. This will turn out differently once you start building, especially when you don't know the exact tightness and friction characteristics of all parts. Along the way I started to verify certain parts of my design with the few bricks I did have, just to get a feel of how sturdy or flexible certain constructions are.

- It's easy to build things in LDD that you can't build in real-life. Sometimes this is obvious, but with complex designs you might end up with something that you can never actually build. A good practice to avoid unbuildable constructions is to start defining groups that express building stages right from the start. These groups may also serve as a starting point for making building instructions.

Nevertheless, I do think I would start off with LDD again on my next project. I like to keep everything placed on a 1-stud grid, because I believe that leaves the most options open for subsequent design steps. LDD is a great help in that. Also when using triangular constructions I always try to make use of the 3/4/5 property (Pythagoras: 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, 5/12/13 is another example). Most of the existing 'bent' liftarms have been based on the 3/4/5 property. In LDD I can easily put some teporary liftarms in place to help me count studs and make my angled liftarms an exact fit. Here's an image with two angled constructions that work out perfectly on a 1-stud gridded design. Both fully rely on the 3/4/5 property, the left example even in two dimensions:

LDD also helped me in setting up a main structure for my Steppenwolf-project without filling in the details. I used that as a point of departure in designing the suspension modules and the gearbox module. Not making any compromises to the main structure to make sure I ended up with a sturdy chassis.

Edited April 14, 20168 yr by Didumos69

After I realised how time consuming to ceate photo sequence instructions (I am sure it is the same for CAD pdfs) can be, no to mention the investigation of proper equipment which needed, I decided to develop/document paralell in LDD, and sit on the floor with my part bins.

I find this combination rather usefull, development works back and forth. To try an idea, sometimes it is better to use the real bricks, but in many cases I can "dig" more painless and effective into a complex structure in LDD.

Also much easier (and cheaper as I had to learn...) to figure out the final colors for bodywork, and general appearance in LDD.

Edited April 14, 20168 yr by agrof