What is the best digital tool to start with?

[davesonmaui]

I haven't started building digitally, but I'm a quick learner with computers.  

Should I begin with LDD, Mecabricks, stud.io?  (or other options I don't know about?)

It seems like LDD is more robust, but Meca and Stud are easier to learn/use?

Is this correct?  Also can instructions be made from Meca or Stud?  I know they can with LDD.

Mahalo

 

[Calabar]

LDD is probably the easiest, but it is more limited and almost abandoned.
Mecabricks is a very interesting and active project, it surely deserves a chance.
LDCad is at the moment the main LDRAW based software, it has a virtually unlimited parts database and a modern interface.
Stud.io is new, but it seems promising, but I can't tell you more as I never tried it.

You can find other info about LEGO software in the Section Index (one of the two pinned topics in this section of the forum).

[knotian]

I have been using stud.io for several months and cannot say enough good about it. Yes it's 'beta' but it, IMHO, blows away the others. It uses the ldraw library so parts are not a problem. It's backed by the BrickLink group. Whether it will cost something when complete has not been announced. Parts positioning and manipulation are excellent. Variable snapping is available as are different degrees of positioning.  Try it!

[legolijntje]

35 minutes ago, knotian said:

[...]
It's backed by the BrickLink group.
[...]

For me personally, that's the biggest con of stud.io. Not sure why exactly, something about the way they operate lately and the way they handle the stud.io stuff. Not that I don't trust Bricklink, certainly not, I use Bricklink a lot.

But aside from that, it's an interesting editor with a lot of functionality.  Although I haven't used it very much so far.

[Darkdragon]

I use to use LDD, but tried Stud.io (because LDD is blocked from download and install on my work machine )  I was pleasantly surprised by the Bricklink offering as I found the whole thing felt more "grown up" as far as interface. I also believe that new parts are added in quicker, as long as they are existing and released - sometimes LDD does add in parts that are coming out soon if it's close to update time.  Of course the integration into Bricklink is very helpful, and LDD doesn't integrate into PAB or B&P, so you have to compile a list and find hte parts on your own there.

I don't know why being a product from Bricklink would make someone nervous about using it, their goal is to get more sales so it's a vested interest in having a product people want to use that can then create more and larger sales for parts.

[SylvainLS]

53 minutes ago, Darkdragon said:

I don't know why being a product from Bricklink would make someone nervous about using it

Because of the way they work and communicate.

When I came out of my dark ages, the MOC shop was a few months old: Apparently something no one asked for, no one needs, and no one uses. Seller tools and instant checkout are most awaited (I’m a buyer only but it’s what I get from the forum). They updated the website last year: full of bugs, missing features, still no seller tools, no instant checkout, documentation missing, no answer to questions. They just released Mosaick: another tool no one asked for, no added value relatively to existing mosaic programs, some problems (rare & expensive colors used, dimensions in inches or studs only…). They just released an instant checkout preview: missing features, a lot of unanswered questions, deployment postponed sine die.

Any professional team needs a simple, efficient way for users to report and follow bugs. All we, users, have is a forum for both Stud.io and Mosaick: very few answers from admins, very few informations. (Some simple things get answers, or vague “thank you, we’ll look into it,” but the bulk of the answers is made by users. And don’t go technical on them, they don’t answer. Myself, I tried to talk to them about helping them with their (buggy) LXF import: never heard back from them.)

[mocbuild101]

LDD is the best to start with - easy to use, and it can make instructions automatically (although they are not very good).

But if you plan to be making proper PDF instructions, I would definitely start with one of the LDraw programs - which I would recommend MLcad, unless you want brick-snapping (like LDD has) - which in that case you would use LDcad.

[SylvainLS]

To complete:

Instructions: Blueprint makes instructions from LDD files (LXF).

Snapping: Stud.io also has snapping and a “connected parts“ selection tool (and is LDraw-based).

And you can easily export from LDD to LDraw (the other way around isn’t always easy though), within LDD or with lxf2ldr.

[Philo]

3 hours ago, mocbuild101 said:

which I would recommend MLcad

I really, really don't recommend using outdated, clumsy and illegible MLCad! LDCad is far better. Stud.io looks good too, but I have little experience with it.

[mocbuild101]

On 7/2/2017 at 4:06 AM, Philo said:

I really, really don't recommend using outdated, clumsy and illegible MLCad! LDCad is far better.

MLcad isn't clumsy or illegible, (and personally I don't think it's outdated either) and it's also much simpler than LDcad, yes LDcad has some features that are better - better editor and brick-snapping - but that's only if you have a computer that can handle it.

And yes, I have used them both.

 

Although I have not used Stud.io yet - I have a bit of a problem with it...

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by mocbuild101

[Philo]

2 hours ago, mocbuild101 said:

MLcad isn't clumsy or illegible, (and personally I don't think it's outdated either) and it's also much simpler than LDcad, yes LDcad has some features that are better - easy use of wires and pneumatic tubes, better editor, and brick-snapping -

The best tool is the one you know how to use ;) That's why I try as much as possible to induce people new to LEGO CAD to use a good tool from the beginning!

I never liked MLCad usage... I did use it a lot, I created hundreds of LDraw parts with it as for a long time it was the only graphic tool available. But for models I always used editors with a better usability, successively LeoCAD, then SR3D builder, then LDCad.

Quote

but that's only if you have a computer that can handle it.

You might have a point here, true, MLCad will run on very outdated hardware. But LDCad doesn't require fancy computer either, I used it successfully on an underpowered, more than 10 years old laptop - and not for a 3 bricks model, it was for the Technic Bucket Wheel Excavator! Granted, it was not extremely fast when the model was almost completed, but MLCad is a real slug for huge models...

Edited July 2, 2017 by Philo

[mocbuild101]

Just now, Philo said:

The best tool is the one you know how to use ;)

Agreed, and I guess that's also why I like MLcad so much!

[Umbra-Manis]

Personally I recommend starting in LDD and and eventually graduating to Mecabricks. The LDD import on mecabricks also makes it possible to start a build in LDD where you need to snap a lot of stuff quickly and then import to mecabricks to utilize the extensive print library and excellent flex tools.

[Ordinareo]

5 hours ago, Umbra-Manis said:

Personally I recommend starting in LDD and and eventually graduating to Mecabricks. The LDD import on mecabricks also makes it possible to start a build in LDD where you need to snap a lot of stuff quickly and then import to mecabricks to utilize the extensive print library and excellent flex tools.

I would agree with Umbra-Manis, start with LDD since it is more simple than MB but lacks the newer pieces since it is basically abandoned but it is still great to use, then eventually move to Mecabricks which is updated every day since it has a huge amount of parts and decorations and is fun to get used to it's workshop mechanics and features.

Edited July 2, 2017 by Ordinareo

[arijitdas]

I haven't used any of these digital designers and have no experience with them. Hence, a rather stupid query - does any of these editors allow the functionality to test power/manual functions that is incorporated in the set that I am building digitally?

[knotian]

arijitdas;

Not a stupid question.

Not directly, as far as I know. There is a product aimed at the Education market called Virtual Robotic Toolkit. It allows the import of LDraw compatible models and then allows you to program the interrelationships between various connected parts. You can then 'operate' the models and 'program' them to do various things in a virtual environment.

On a personal not, I dealt with the a couple of years ago and they are (IMHO) a very good group to deal with. Any questions I had we answered quickly. The license was $50 when I was working with it. If you are really going to get into virtual work it is a good investment. They are still in development, as far as I know.

[anothergol]

On 29/06/2017 at 11:28 PM, davesonmaui said:

I haven't started building digitally, but I'm a quick learner with computers.  

Should I begin with LDD, Mecabricks, stud.io?  (or other options I don't know about?)

It seems like LDD is more robust, but Meca and Stud are easier to learn/use?

Is this correct?  Also can instructions be made from Meca or Stud?  I know they can with LDD.

Mahalo

 

As for easiness & speed, you want auto part snapping, thus LDD or Stud.io. Stud.io is promising, but not there yet.

Mecabricks is by far the hardest, but it's the one with the best render & the latest parts. Stud.io has a nice render using POVRay, and new parts are hard but possible to hack in.

My setup is LDD & Stud.io for rendering if needed.
LDD has recently proven not being abandonned, but yeah, do expect 1 part update/year.

On 30/06/2017 at 4:46 PM, Darkdragon said:

I don't know why being a product from Bricklink would make someone nervous about using it, their goal is to get more sales so it's a vested interest in having a product people want to use that can then create more and larger sales for parts.

That's a downside I'm afraid.  I don't believe that Stud.io has a chance to get profitable, because BL integration is just a gimmick IMHO. LDD had the same intentions, afterall. I just don't believe in a "press this button to buy all the parts", it's always more complex. So IMHO it's less risky for a tool to be maintained by enthousiasts.

Also it seems that its dev has slowed down or something. I've been thinking that Stud.io was "not there yet" for quite a long time now, but the little quircks are still there. I'm not expecting Stud.io to ever get any physics or flex, because that's anything but a detail to add, but I would like things like LDD-like mouse & kb controls. Like the possibility of the same mapping for easy migration, moving the camera slower & more friendly, etc.

On 02/07/2017 at 6:43 AM, mocbuild101 said:

Although I have not used Stud.io yet - I have a bit of a problem with it...

Transparent in Stud.io means that there is a physical collision somewhere. You can turn it off, but better find the collision & fix it.

[supertruper1988]

I recommend starting in Stud.io I have used LDD extensively and am now moving to Stud.io. It is easy to use and has load of parts and decorations. You can also check prices and that the part you are using exists in the color you want. Plus you can upload directly to a brick link wanted list. 

[CorporalDwayneBricks]

I second what supertruper 1988 mentioned. As a new user I quickly switched from LDD to stud.io once I discovered it.

So much nicer with multiple models in tabs and being able to copy and paste.
it clearly shows you also if you have "illegal" colors in your model or "undefined types" still lingering somewhere. the bricklink marketplace integration is just icing on the cake, even though I find the prices to not be fully realistic at times. At least it indicates expensive pieces and where to watch out while building.

[Jason C. Hand]

On 6/29/2017 at 5:28 PM, davesonmaui said:

I haven't started building digitally, but I'm a quick learner with computers.  

Should I begin with LDD, Mecabricks, stud.io?  (or other options I don't know about?)

It seems like LDD is more robust, but Meca and Stud are easier to learn/use?

Is this correct?  Also can instructions be made from Meca or Stud?  I know they can with LDD.

Mahalo

 

I've been using LDD since 2012; as such, it's a good place to start exploring digital building. I also used stud.io for a little bit, but it ran very slowly on my current laptop (and probably tore through available RAM, too). But from what I understand, stud.io has a much better assortment of bricks and decals than LDD.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Jason C. Hand

[knotian]

I've diddled with most of them and stud.io is the best bet for someone satrting out. You don't have any unlearning to do. Really has some nice dodads.

[DataNinja]

I'm new to digital design with Lego, and started with LDD.  After 1 marathon session I got extremely frustrated with trying to make it properly align technic pieces that I know fit together IRL.  Imported my model to Stud.io and the troublesome bits fit right in...my vote is Stud.io for technic models.  Check out the pin in the triangle liftarm plate won't go in on the left with LDD, but fits fine with Stud.io (pic on the right).  Crap like that is frustrating...

Bonus points if you can figure out which Technic set this is!

Sounds like some interesting discussion in this post about LDCad and MecaBricks that I'm sure I will have to look at once I need to incorporate flex axles into my model.  

EDIT: OK a few more hours with each and maybe I need to clarify my position.  I was able to get those pins in with LDD...turns out somehow I had rotated the entire model ~1 degree which was starting to cause many alignment issues.  Things really were starting to go haywire with that LDD imported model into Stud.io, so really was easier to just start over.  "Snap to grid" feature in Stud.io prevents this problem that I have to carefully manage in LDD.  Now I'm discovering a new criticism of Stud.io for technic models: it gets really picky about joining pieces based on the viewing angle and also which side of the piece I'm trying to connect.  For example it won't let an axle into a slot, but when I turn the axle around I have no issue...crazy.  LDD seems maybe a little more forgiving to allow these connections at any angle or orientation.

Edited August 19, 2018 by DataNinja

[anothergol]

Autosnapping is best (by far) in LDD than in any other tool anyway. But what Stud.io has over the LDD is the bypass of autosnapping, the bypass of collision detection (which is inherently flawed in any tool because that would require ultrahigh precision models), and finer increments in parts relocation (that can be REAL pain in the LDD)