| |
All,
I would like to take this opportunity to announce a cool new project many
years in the making. I hope you find this as exciting as I do.
== A new LEGO building application ==
LEGO has been making building software for many years now (like LEGO Creator
and LEGO CAD). In (or around) June we will be releasing the latest and best
version, tentatively codenamed "LEGO Digital Designer." You will be able to
download it from LEGO.com. It's targeted at kids and novice users, so it's
not meant to "compete" with the powerful tools that have been developed for
the LDraw file format. We hope that it'll be a fun and easy to learn way for
many new users, young and old, to start playing with LEGO bricks in 3D. As
they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
building tools.
== Our goal is for all LEGO-style building software to work together ==
We think all LEGO builders, inside and outside the company, should have
tools that suit their skill level and particular requirements, and that you
should be able to move models between these tools. For many years now we
have been developing an internal file format, known as LXF, to make this
kind of interaction possible. Starting a couple years ago, we also solicited
input from some members of the LDraw community about what they would like to
see in a new LEGO model format, and we'd like to continue that process. We
would also like to see the LDraw file format models work with LXF format for
the same reason -- so that models you build in one program can be used in
others.
== LDraw Standards Committee (LSC) collaboration ==
It is absolutely marvelous to see the LDraw community begin a push towards
formalization. This will, end the long run, make it much easier for LEGO to
work with directly with the LDraw community on issues of collaboration, and
future development. Much like the ILTCO provides a “Batphone” between the
Train community and LEGO, hopefully this is the Batphone to the LDraw community.
== Tools for software developers ==
Unlike many other companies, we have a tradition of trying to encourage the
work of independent software developers, who want to tinker, revise and/or
restructure and build on our software. The work done by developers on the
software in our RIS sets, which operates the RCX, is a great example. In the
same spirit, we plan to release a Software Development Kit (SDK) based on
our new building application, with tools that will hopefully prove useful to
developers that want to work with or try to improve upon the current LEGO
building software.
This is likely to raise some questions:
- Will your new building applications open DAT/LDR/MPD files?
Probably not, but we hope to provide some tools for translating DAT/LDR/MPD
into LXF. There are many complex issues involved and we will be asking for
information from the LDraw community to help with this goal.
- Aren't you just trying to replace the LDraw file format and take over?
Not at all. We think users and software authors should support whatever
format they find works the best for them. We developed LXF originally as a
format for our own use, and we think it might prove useful to everyone. We
would definitely like to see the tools necessary to go back and forth
between the two formats, because there is a lot of great stuff out there in
the LDraw file format.
- Are you going to release a parts library?
It makes a lot of sense for us to release parts, as LEGO is the source of
all official parts anyway. However, we do not yet have a complete plan for
how or if we can do this, and it's highly unlikely that we'd be able to
release every part all at once. Your input on this issue is more than
welcome; please tell us what would be useful for you.
- Is the LXF format going to be open, will you publish it and will we be
able to extend it?
We will provide all of the necessary information in the SDK so that
independent developers can make their own tools that use LXF. However, as
many developers will tell you, it's good to try and manage the growth of a
format to some extent, so we would like to maintain the official list of
what the format includes.
- Where can I get more information about how LXF works? Can I see LEGO
Digital Designer?
Since the software is still in development, we are not able to legally
release it for viewing. In June, you will be able to download the program
for usage. That being said, we have beginning to open a dialog with the
LDraw software developers under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA). This will
allow us to get their feedback on the SDK development, implementation
concepts, and future developments. Unfortunately, since the issues involved
with how this software works relates directly to our core business, we have
to be careful what is shared with the outside world.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Developement Manager - N. America
LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> [...]
> - Will your new building applications open DAT/LDR/MPD files?
> Probably not, but we hope to provide some tools for translating DAT/LDR/MPD
> into LXF.
Perhaps Digital Designer could offer third-party "plug-in" capabilities
(import/export) for reading and writing LDraw files...similar to the way
Adobe Photoshop works. But having some command-line tools to do the
conversion would probably be more useful. BTW, please don't alienate the
Unix crowd by releasing these conversion utilities as GUI tools or tools
only available on Windows.
> [...] We
> would definitely like to see the tools necessary to go back and forth
> between the two formats, because there is a lot of great stuff out there in
> the LDraw file format.
I think this is really encouraging. It bears repeating that it would be
really cool if DD could be invoked from the command line just like LDLite,
whereby a server sending a MIME type of X-Application-LXF (or whatever you
define as the MIME type) can tell the browser to launch the appropriate
viewer. It would also make it a lot easier here on LUGNET if we had a Unix
version of your LDR->LXF converter available, so that we can serve LXF files
directly from original LDR content without having to batch-convert the files
off-line on some Windows box.
> - Are you going to release a parts library?
> It makes a lot of sense for us to release parts, as LEGO is the source of
> all official parts anyway. However, we do not yet have a complete plan for
> how or if we can do this, and it's highly unlikely that we'd be able to
> release every part all at once. Your input on this issue is more than
> welcome; please tell us what would be useful for you.
I mentioned this to Brad etc. a few years ago but it bears repeating... If
you don't release a full collection of parts, what will inevitably happen is
that people will create their own parts in LXF format, either by converting
from LDraw or creating them from scratch. If DD doesn't totally blow (like
LEGOCAD did), then you can be sure that the LXF format will be reverse
engineered by someone.
Consequently, I would _highly_ recommend including an "is official" bit in
the LXF header block. If TLC releases its parts with this bit set to 1, and
documents the offset in the file, then I'm sure people creating their own
parts in LXF format will be respectful enough to set this bit to 0
voluntarily when they release their own parts for others to use.
> - Is the LXF format going to be open, will you publish it and will we be
> able to extend it?
> We will provide all of the necessary information in the SDK so that
> independent developers can make their own tools that use LXF.
Ok, this bears repeating too: Please please please release the SDK for Mac
OS X, Linux, and FreeBSD and not just for Microsoft Windows. This will
greatly decrease the probability that someone will need to reverse engineer
your format and write their own converter, FWIW.
> However, as
> many developers will tell you, it's good to try and manage the growth of a
> format to some extent, so we would like to maintain the official list of
> what the format includes.
So -- no, it won't be an open format? It'll be a closed, proprietary,
undocumented format?
> [...] open a dialog with the
> LDraw software developers under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA). This will
> allow us to get their feedback on the SDK development, implementation
> concepts, and future developments.
(A quick aside to LCAD developers: IANAL, but if you think you might
potentially someday be interested in reverse engineering the LXF format for
fun or profit, or creating your own LXF parts, you might want to read the
NDA closely and make sure that you don't inadvertently agree to something
that you might regret later. Just a thought.)
--Todd
|
|
| |
Jake McKee <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote:
> LEGO has been making building software for many years now (like LEGO Creator
> and LEGO CAD). In (or around) June we will be releasing the latest and best
> version, tentatively codenamed "LEGO Digital Designer." You will be able to
> download it from LEGO.com. It's targeted at kids and novice users, so it's
> not meant to "compete" with the powerful tools that have been developed for
> the LDraw file format. We hope that it'll be a fun and easy to learn way for
> many new users, young and old, to start playing with LEGO bricks in 3D. As
> they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
> building tools.
Sounds great!
> == Tools for software developers ==
> Unlike many other companies, we have a tradition of trying to encourage the
> work of independent software developers, who want to tinker, revise and/or
> restructure and build on our software. The work done by developers on the
> software in our RIS sets, which operates the RCX, is a great example. In the
> same spirit, we plan to release a Software Development Kit (SDK) based on
> our new building application, with tools that will hopefully prove useful to
> developers that want to work with or try to improve upon the current LEGO
> building software.
Have you considered following that spirit all the way and making the
software open source? I know that's a big step, but other big companies have
done the same with great success.
I'm particularly concerned that this very cool software might be a
Microsoft-only product, which would be unfortunate for the millions of kids
with Apple computers, and for the dozens of computer geeks who only use
Linux.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> I mentioned this to Brad etc. a few years ago but it bears repeating... If
> you don't release a full collection of parts, what will inevitably happen is
> that people will create their own parts in LXF format, either by converting
> from LDraw or creating them from scratch. If DD doesn't totally blow (like
> LEGOCAD did), then you can be sure that the LXF format will be reverse
> engineered by someone.
I don't think LXF is going to be a parts format, it sounds like it's a way
to exchange models only (think of it as LDraw with only type 1 lines).
Out of curiosity, how do you plan to solve the problem of different parts
library having parts with different orientations/center points? This would
be the most complicated problem when trying to convert to/from LXF.
Leonardo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> == A new LEGO building application ==
> As they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful
> LEGO building tools.
By that I assume you mean true ABS. <grins and smirks> Nothing beats the
real thing for complex and powerful... IMHO...
Seriously though, I think what you are announcing here is great for the
future of the community and its ability to further share LEGO related ideas.
It is also nice to hear that LD/TLC will be open to formats and
collaboration with the existing LDraw community. Sounds good so far!
Thanks!
-Hendo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> All,
>
> I would like to take this opportunity to announce a cool new project
> many years in the making. I hope you find this as exciting as I do.
[...]
I'm excited about the progress, and thankful for your sharing
the news with us, Jake.
It's good to know that TLC/LD continues to take into account
the adult community's dreams and hard work, while planning
for their future.
-Suz - Yet another Mac User.
( always have been... always will be...) ;-)
|
|
| |
Lots of good comments, this is very exciting stuff, ne?
In lugnet.cad, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> > However, as
> > many developers will tell you, it's good to try and manage the growth of a
> > format to some extent, so we would like to maintain the official list of
> > what the format includes.
>
> So -- no, it won't be an open format? It'll be a closed, proprietary,
> undocumented format?
Those aren't the only two alternatives. It could well be closed (changes
controlled by LEGO only, rather than by a standards committee) but still
well documented rather than "undocumented".
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> In (or around) June we will be releasing the latest and best
> version, tentatively codenamed "LEGO Digital Designer."
Is this the program announced three years ago?
"And in 2002, we will begin a program
where LEGO builders will be able to build any three dimensional creation using
free software to create building instructions for their model - and then order
the appropriate number and type of bricks," says Torben Ballegaard Sørensen.
(quoted from this December 2000 post
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/announce/?n=24 , and thanks Suz for copying it,
the URL you mentioned in the post no longer contains this release)
It's very disappointing that now, a year past the release date, we are being
told of the software, but get no mention of the ordering service T.B.S.
promised. Is this the future of Lego? It seems that lately Lego is very
happy to solicit market research and make secret deals with developers, but
we end users and consumers get only empty promises.
Last year, I remembered that Press release from December 2000 and posted a
check-up message in lugnet.lego.direct
(http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=4443) asking for an update. Has it
taken Lego a full year to formulate a response?
Disillusioned customer,
Ben Roller
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Ben Roller writes:
> In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> > In (or around) June we will be releasing the latest and best
> > version, tentatively codenamed "LEGO Digital Designer."
>
> Is this the program announced three years ago?
>
> "And in 2002, we will begin a program
> where LEGO builders will be able to build any three dimensional creation using
> free software to create building instructions for their model - and then order
> the appropriate number and type of bricks," says Torben Ballegaard Sørensen.
Oooh. I had forgotten about that. If this option of ordering the elements
needed for a design were included in the package, I would suddenly develop a
better liking for CAD... :)
> (quoted from this December 2000 post
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/announce/?n=24 , and thanks Suz for copying it,
> the URL you mentioned in the post no longer contains this release)
>
> It's very disappointing that now, a year past the release date, we are being
> told of the software, but get no mention of the ordering service T.B.S.
> promised. Is this the future of Lego? It seems that lately Lego is very
> happy to solicit market research and make secret deals with developers, but
> we end users and consumers get only empty promises.
Software in general, as I have noticed, tends to be fraught with delays and
postponements of release dates. The film industry does this a lot too.
Yet, I don't hear people complaining of empty promises from those industries
(except when they rush the development and end up with a product full of
bugs and low quality. I'd rather wait if it means better results.).
> Last year, I remembered that Press release from December 2000 and posted a
> check-up message in lugnet.lego.direct
> (http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=4443) asking for an update. Has it
> taken Lego a full year to formulate a response?
>
> Disillusioned customer,
> Ben Roller
It is unfortunate, but I don't think TLC has the resources to answer every
question directly, especially not questions posted on a third-party board
(Lugnet). Of course, I shouldn't be speaking for them, rather just
paraphrasing things I have heard before. As a fellow fan, I am sorry you
feel disillusioned, and I do understand your reasoning. But until I see the
product, I will be hopefull that things will turn out for the better.
-Hendo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Ben Roller writes:
> "And in 2002, we will begin a program
> where LEGO builders will be able to build any three dimensional creation
> using free software to create building instructions for their model - and
> then order the appropriate number and type of bricks," says Torben
> Ballegaard Sørensen.
>
> (quoted from this December 2000 post
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/announce/?n=24 , and thanks Suz for copying
> it, the URL you mentioned in the post no longer contains this release)
>
> It's very disappointing that now, a year past the release date, we are
> being told of the software, but get no mention of the ordering service
> T.B.S. promised. Is this the future of Lego? It seems that lately Lego
> is very happy to solicit market research and make secret deals with
> developers, but we end users and consumers get only empty promises.
FWIW, the VP at TLC who is quoted as saying this actually ended up leaving
TLC not too long after the 7 Dec 2000 press release. On 18 Mar 2001 (101
days later), a Bang & Olufsen press release announced that Sørensen had left
LEGO and would become B&O's new CEO as of 1 Jul 2001:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=28848
> Last year, I remembered that Press release from December 2000 and posted a
> check-up message in lugnet.lego.direct
> (http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=4443) asking for an update. Has it
> taken Lego a full year to formulate a response?
>
> Disillusioned customer,
> Ben Roller
Sørensen's departure probably dealt a heavy blow to TLC...and he may have
been one of the key players at TLC supporting and pushing for the mentioned
product. I don't know much about him but had the opportunity to meet him
in Nov 2000 and he seemed like he was really on top of things and expressed
excitement and enthusiasm about the future and about LEGO returning to more
traditional building values. I guess B&O made him an offer he couldn't
refuse. Obviously this doesn't help answer your question as to why no one
at TLC responded to your post last year, but I hope it sheds a bit of light.
--Todd
|
|
| |
This is great timing and I'm very encouraged by what you've outlined here.
I'd like to throw in my "me too" post about supporting other platforms
in addition to Microsoft Windows(TM)
and that the LXF spec be publically documented. It's reasonable that
TLC would want to control and maintain the file spec, but it's
availability to potential developers will keep incompatabilities to a
minimum and could make the difference in it's wide-spread acceptance or
total irrelavence.
I'm personally very interested in the file format issues and building
conversion utilities. How can I get on the list of people that will be
evaluating the SDK ?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Leonardo Zide writes:
> I don't think LXF is going to be a parts format, it sounds like it's a way
> to exchange models only (think of it as LDraw with only type 1 lines).
Ok, maybe things have changed. Originally TLC was talking about releasing
parts as files. My understanding is that they have three "quality" levels
of parts: high quality, medium quality, and low-quality. The high quality
parts are what their internal software uses for when they create printed
building instructions. The low-quality parts data are what they give to
third-party game developers. These need to render quickly and don't have to
be accurate. The medium-quality parts data are what I thought would become
the LXF parts. I also believe TLC was considering supplying parts data files
on floppy disk with building sets. But certainly that could have changed over
the years or my memory of this could be faulty.
Jake, certainly you can shed light on this? Is LXF a format for encoding
models only, or can it also specify arbitrary parts? Will an update to the
software itself be required in order to install new parts or will new parts
ship as parts updates? Is the LXF format hierarchical? Can an LXF file
"include" another LXF file by reference or does it actually embed copies of
files? Does LXF stand for LEGO eXchange Format?
Will LEGO provide any LXF-to-XML conversion tools? How about LXF-to-SVG?
> Out of curiosity, how do you plan to solve the problem of different parts
> library having parts with different orientations/center points? This would
> be the most complicated problem when trying to convert to/from LXF.
I imagine they'll have a big lookup table containing affine transformations
to apply on a part-by-part basis.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.cad, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> > > However, as
> > > many developers will tell you, it's good to try and manage the growth of a
> > > format to some extent, so we would like to maintain the official list of
> > > what the format includes.
> >
> > So -- no, it won't be an open format? It'll be a closed, proprietary,
> > undocumented format?
>
> Those aren't the only two alternatives. It could well be closed (changes
> controlled by LEGO only, rather than by a standards committee) but still
> well documented rather than "undocumented".
Ya, that would be a lot like Adobe's approach to PostScript. It's a closed
language in that Adobe has decreed that they are the official purveyors of
enhancements to the language, but it's an open language in that it's extremely
well documented.
I suspect that LXF will be a completely undocumented, proprietary, closed,
binary file format and that it will be up to us to reverse engineer the file
format in order to create useful cross-platform tools to manipulate LXF files.
On the other hand, reverse engineering the file format may engender ill will,
the fear of which works towards TLC's advantage, passively discouraging people
from attempting it. It'll be interesting to watch this unfold. I made my
best case for a well-documented text-based format long ago...I was thanked
for my input and I think that's as far as the suggestions got. :-)
I would *love* to be proven wrong, however, because I don't think it's
healthy for the community to be locked into and dependent on a proprietary
SDK and proprietary conversion tools to interface with LXF files --
especially software that isn't cross-platform. I also think that TLC won't
achieve its goal of having LXF be the new de-facto standard for interchange
of models online unless TLC either releases -all- the parts or works with the
community to allow the community to develop unofficial versions of the parts.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> It's targeted at kids and novice users, so it's not meant to "compete" with
> the powerful tools that have been developed for the LDraw file format.
But, whether or not it's meant to compete, it will compete, won't it? Or
will it have such a limited parts selection that only kids would want to
use it? What about the more complex powerful LEGO building tools mentioned
below? Won't those compete with tools that have been developed for the LDraw
file format?
Sorry, I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, Jake. I'm just getting
mixed signals. Some of my data is old, so I understand that things may have
changed significantly.
When Brad Justus spoke of this 2 1/2 years ago, he said specifically that
LEGO wanted to release a file format for parts, with the intention being
for that format to become the standard for interchange of LEGO models online
and among friends in person. He said that LEGO would provide tools for
converting between LEGO's proprietary file format and LDraw format (and
vice-versa) but that LEGO wanted to control the LXF file format. Now I
didn't get the impression that LEGO wanted to compete head-to-head against
LDraw per se but that LEGO was more concerned about some competitor (e.g.,
Mega-Bloks, etc.) coming in and beating LEGO to the punch and establishing
itself as the de-facto standard first, which would weaken LEGO's position.
Brad asked us for our opinions on how this might be received when it was
pitched to the LCAD community. We said it probably would be received well
but expressed concerns over the nature of the file format. I said that I
thought it would be well received *if* LEGO could reassure people that the
file format would be well documented so that anyone could write their own
tools, and not have to go through a proprietary SDK to read and write LXF
files, and that it probably would not be well received if the file format
were completely proprietary, binary, and undocumented. Suzanne said that
she hoped people in the community didn't end up feeling used after all is
said and done. All in all, we thought it would be received well, regardless
of the details of the file format.
Anyway. I didn't sign an NDA back then, so I wasn't able to get very many
details...only what was volunteered by Brad. I've kept silent on this since
Nov 2000 out of respect for the fact that this project wasn't public, but now
that the LXF file format project and DD is announced publicly, I think it
would be great if we could all talk about our concerns publicly, for those
of us who have concerns.
Whether or not LXF is designed to "compete" with LDraw isn't really something
that worries me... What worries me is wondering what life will be like in a
world where LXF files can only be manipulated via an SDK, and where we won't
be able to create our own parts in LXF format if LEGO doesn't provide all the
parts.
I see at least one way that LEGO benefits from having tools like MLCAD support
the LXF format, but if the LCAD community is not in the target market for this
product, what does the LCAD community gain by supporting the LXF format? I'm
worried that all the good LCAD developers will, two years down the road, be
bound by NDA and restricted somewhat in freedom of movement. For example,
what if LEGO has come up with some totally ingenious method for encoding
part connections, and that method is covered under NDA? It would hard for
the community to implement the same method in LDraw format or some successor
of it.
I'd love to be wrong, though. But part of my job is to be skeptical. :-)
> As they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
> building tools.
This sounds encouraging! :-) Do you mean that Digital Designer 1.0 is but
the first in a sequence of ever-more-powerful and exciting software coming
down the pike from LEGO? Do you think LEGO ever might release something as
powerful as MLCAD?
> - Will your new building applications open DAT/LDR/MPD files?
> Probably not, but we hope to provide some tools for translating DAT/LDR/MPD
> into LXF.
What about the other direction? Will LEGO be providing tools for translating
LXF files into DAT/LDR/MPD?
> There are many complex issues involved and we will be asking for
> information from the LDraw community to help with this goal.
Yay, I'm glad to see this level of interaction!
BTW, will this input take place publicly or behind closed doors?
> [...] We would definitely like to see the tools necessary to go back and
> forth between the two formats, because there is a lot of great stuff out
> there in the LDraw file format.
Does LEGO plan to release software that converts both directions or would
the LXF->LDR conversion be left to the community? If the latter, would
that developer be bound under NDA?
> - Are you going to release a parts library?
> It makes a lot of sense for us to release parts, as LEGO is the source of
> all official parts anyway. However, we do not yet have a complete plan for
> how or if we can do this, and it's highly unlikely that we'd be able to
> release every part all at once. Your input on this issue is more than
> welcome; please tell us what would be useful for you.
It would be useful to me to be able to download new parts as individual files
as well as ZIP-file collections. I wouldn't mind paying a licensing fee to
use and adapt the parts.
I assume I won't need to pay a licensing fee to publish LXF files on the
Internet.
> - Is the LXF format going to be open, will you publish it and will we be
> able to extend it?
> We will provide all of the necessary information in the SDK so that
> independent developers can make their own tools that use LXF. However, as
> many developers will tell you, it's good to try and manage the growth of a
> format to some extent, so we would like to maintain the official list of
> what the format includes.
I understand that answer to mean that we will not be able to extend the
format. How about the first half of the question, just so we understand
100% and can put speculation to rest. :-) Will LEGO be publishing any
documentation on the file format itself? Will that documentation be freely
available or will a person have to sign an NDA in order to obtain a copy of
it?
Thanks,
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Todd Lehman writes:
> I suspect that LXF will be a completely undocumented, proprietary, closed,
> binary file format and that it will be up to us to reverse engineer the file
> format in order to create useful cross-platform tools to manipulate LXF files.
> I would *love* to be proven wrong, however, because I don't think it's
> healthy for the community to be locked into and dependent on a proprietary
> SDK and proprietary conversion tools to interface with LXF files --
> especially software that isn't cross-platform.
I also hope you're proven wrong, but the presence of an NDA would
seem to indicate otherwise. Either way, I'm willing to work on cross
platform tools if the Digital Designer software is more popular with
my kids than Creator was.
> I also think that TLC won't
> achieve its goal of having LXF be the new de-facto standard for interchange
> of models online unless TLC either releases -all- the parts or works with the
> community to allow the community to develop unofficial versions of the parts.
I don't know about that. They could still leverage their patent
portfolio http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=8622 to achieve that goal.
Yikes! I'm gonna have to stop reading Todd's posts. They're bringing
out my paranoid side. I think I'll just cross my fingers, cover my
eyes and ears, and hope for the best in June.
Don
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Don Heyse writes:
> [...] They could still leverage their patent
> portfolio http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=8622 to achieve that goal.
Oh! That's interesting! The upside of thisof course is that at least some
of the LXF format -is- documented. That's good. Hmm, I wonder which
countries LEGO has obtained this patent in, or if it's even enforceable in
the U.S.? Does anyone at a law firm or in law school have access to all 89
claims? Granted patents are public information, so someone could post a
copy of the claims here and we could pick them apart for fun.
> Yikes! I'm gonna have to stop reading Todd's posts. They're bringing
> out my paranoid side. I think I'll just cross my fingers, cover my
> eyes and ears, and hope for the best in June.
Sorry, I'm not trying to make anyone else paranoid or offend Jake or anyone
else at LEGO, I just think it's in our best interests for us all to ask
tough questions and state our deepest concerns honestly, publicly, and
candidly, before becoming overly enthusiastic. Don't get me wrong, I think
LEGO is headed in a great direction with this.
The question I think we all must ask ourselves is, what do we each give up
in order to get what LEGO is asking us to buy into with our individual and
collective time and brainpower?
--Todd
|
|
| |
In my opinion, what killed the community's enthusiuasm for working with LEGO
was LEGO's intention to patent the file format (and complicate it to do so.)
Since then, LEGO has obtained a government monopoly on CAD that is so broad,
it could even be construed to cover LDRAW (if not for the obvious fact that
LDRAW is prior art, aside from the lack of documentation of that fact.)
At the least, no one can know where they stand without hiring a lawyer.
Since we are writing code for free, that's not really in the cards.
For this reason, it is necessary for LEGO to freely license its
recently-acquired "intellectual property" (I emphasize the dubious nature of
software patents) if it wants something in return, i.e. that we all work
with LEGO for free. Anything less will leave uncertainty, fear and doubt.
The matter will probably never be clear. I doubt Compaq will license its
software patents for virtual LEGO.
-Erik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Todd Lehman writes:
> Sorry, I'm not trying to make anyone else paranoid or offend Jake or anyone
> else at LEGO, I just think it's in our best interests for us all to ask
> tough questions and state our deepest concerns honestly, publicly, and
> candidly, before becoming overly enthusiastic. Don't get me wrong, I think
> LEGO is headed in a great direction with this.
Not at all offended. I knew there would be some questions and concerns.
There have been a number of things raised that I will work on getting solid
answers for, since I'm not well versed in the details of this project.
Before much of this spirals out of control, let me get some answers and then
we can talk.
> The question I think we all must ask ourselves is, what do we each give up
> in order to get what LEGO is asking us to buy into with our individual and
> collective time and brainpower?
I can totally respect that. I would just ask that you give the benefits
equal thought too. What do you get by buying in?
I swear that we are not the "big bad company", and we aren't out to take
advantage of anyone. We are a group of people working on a very long term
project for many many months, and are doing our absolute best to share as
much with you as possible. We have no interest or intention of releasing a
standard file format that doesn't allow the community to add their own
parts. As mentioned in the announcement, for the forseeable future, the
LDraw format and LXF will probably live side by side.
We haven't developed (and aren't trying to) any kind of "secret society", or
playing favorites. This project is monumentally large in that we are
releasing data on how LEGO elements (our very reason for being as a company)
are described. As you can imagine, there is much legal groundwork to lay,
and is still being laid. Rather than involve the community when this is
finished, we decided to invite the LDraw software developers (under NDA) to
have some discussions with us about the concepts we are working on. Simply
put, we have to protect our business.
By the way, the thing that we "want" from the community on this
collaboration is not to have you write software for us, we are already
working on that (Digital Designer). Rather we felt it was important to share
as much as possible with you in order to help drive community. Imagine if
the original Mindstorms software had focused on kids, but we had also
released the details of the RCX to the AFOLs at launch. It wouldn't have
made much difference to the kids market, since a 10-12 year old wouldn't
have developed NQC, for instance. But man, it would have made it easier to
develop that language.
More information tomorrow!
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Development Manager - N. America
LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> > It's targeted at kids and novice users, so it's not meant to "compete" with
> > the powerful tools that have been developed for the LDraw file format.
>
> But, whether or not it's meant to compete, it will compete, won't it? Or
> will it have such a limited parts selection that only kids would want to
> use it? What about the more complex powerful LEGO building tools mentioned
> below? Won't those compete with tools that have been developed for the LDraw
> file format?
More on this post tomorrow, but a couple of quick answers. By compete, I
just meant that our DD software isn't meant to compete with, say MLCad. It
is designed for use by kids around the age of 7 or 8. MLCad, I would assume,
doesn't really become easily usable until the age of 12 or so, right?
> Sorry, I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, Jake. I'm just getting
> mixed signals. Some of my data is old, so I understand that things may have
> changed significantly.
No worries, you're not being a thorn. But yes, much has changed (perhaps
evolved is a better word). We have been working on this project for 3+
years, and as anyone who develops software knows, you have to be flexible in
your process. If you try to stick too stringently to your original goals and
objectives, then you will probably end up with something you don't like.
Over 3+ years, we learned what would work and what wouldn't technically. We
tested over and over with kids to see what they were capable of, and more
importantly, interested in doing. We dealt with legal and business issues.
And on and on...
<snip some good stuff>
> Anyway. I didn't sign an NDA back then, so I wasn't able to get very many
> details...only what was volunteered by Brad. I've kept silent on this since
> Nov 2000 out of respect for the fact that this project wasn't public, but now
> that the LXF file format project and DD is announced publicly, I think it
> would be great if we could all talk about our concerns publicly, for those
> of us who have concerns.
I can understand that desire, but please understand that there are MANY
issues at stake here. This is a huge leap forward for our business, and we
have to make sure that the company overall is comfortable with what we are
doing, and that we aren't committing business hari kari. That being said, we
are doing our best to get some discussion going so that we can hear concerns
and respond. Like this!
> Whether or not LXF is designed to "compete" with LDraw isn't really something
> that worries me... What worries me is wondering what life will be like in a
> world where LXF files can only be manipulated via an SDK, and where we won't
> be able to create our own parts in LXF format if LEGO doesn't provide all the
> parts.
More info on this tomorrow when I can get feedback from better informed
colleagues. But hey, in (almost) 3 years working with the community, have I
ever presented something that doesn't turn out good for the community in the
end? Try not to worry too much. Not yet anyway! ;)
> I see at least one way that LEGO benefits from having tools like MLCAD support
> the LXF format, but if the LCAD community is not in the target market for this
> product, what does the LCAD community gain by supporting the LXF format? I'm
> worried that all the good LCAD developers will, two years down the road, be
> bound by NDA and restricted somewhat in freedom of movement. For example,
> what if LEGO has come up with some totally ingenious method for encoding
> part connections, and that method is covered under NDA? It would hard for
> the community to implement the same method in LDraw format or some successor
> of it.
First, the NDA issues. The NDA is in place for one reason alone: Legal
issues that are not yet resolved. Once those are finalized, the NDAs go away.
Now, that being said, take the NDA discussion out of your statement above
and you have your answer as to why the community would support LXF... we can
all share in the work, and if LEGO comes up with "some totally ingenious
method for encoding part connections", it's not just ours. It's your too.
> I'd love to be wrong, though. But part of my job is to be skeptical. :-)
It is? Sounds like an interesting job! Do you get dental with that? :)
> > As they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
> > building tools.
>
> This sounds encouraging! :-) Do you mean that Digital Designer 1.0 is but
> the first in a sequence of ever-more-powerful and exciting software coming
> down the pike from LEGO? Do you think LEGO ever might release something as
> powerful as MLCAD?
I meant that they would graduate to the community developed tools.
<snip>
> I assume I won't need to pay a licensing fee to publish LXF files on the
> Internet.
Nope. We aren't creating the GIF format! :)
> > - Is the LXF format going to be open, will you publish it and will we be
> > able to extend it?
> > We will provide all of the necessary information in the SDK so that
> > independent developers can make their own tools that use LXF. However, as
> > many developers will tell you, it's good to try and manage the growth of a
> > format to some extent, so we would like to maintain the official list of
> > what the format includes.
>
> I understand that answer to mean that we will not be able to extend the
> format. How about the first half of the question, just so we understand
> 100% and can put speculation to rest. :-) Will LEGO be publishing any
> documentation on the file format itself? Will that documentation be freely
> available or will a person have to sign an NDA in order to obtain a copy of
> it?
Don't quote me quite yet on this one, but from what I understand, the
documentation will be available to all, and yes, you will be able to extend
the format. This is where I hope that the LDraw community comes together to
formalize. This will help make it much easier to extend, help to ensure
quality of the extension. We will need to be involved in this process at
first though. (The Adobe PostScript example was a good one from another post
in this thread).
Anyway, off to bed. More info tomorrow!
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Development Manager - N. America
LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> I can totally respect that. I would just ask that you give the benefits
> equal thought too. What do you get by buying in?
Honestly, I don't see any benefits for the LCAD community in supporting the
LXF format, unless the LXF format is so many more light years ahead of the
LDraw format that the effort of supporting LXF would be miniscule compared
to the benefits.
But if that's the case, then why wouldn't the LCAD community just raise the
LDraw format's capabilities to the level of LXF's capabilities and forget
about native LXF support?
Additionally, if LEGO releases parts in LXF format, and someone writes an
LXF-to-LDR converter, what's to be gained by adding native LXF support to
tools like MLCAD when it would be easier simply to convert all the LXF parts
to LDR parts?
Also, if LXF promises increased modeling capabilities (because it's a lot
more sophisticated file format), why will developers spend their time
learning to work with a proprietary format when they could instead be
developing a free and open format? (I'm not saying they won't, I'm just
having a little trouble seeing the motivation.)
It seems to me that the real gain here for the LCAD community, long term,
may simply be exposure to cool algorithms and data structures. To really
benefit from these doesn't require recoding software to support the LXF
format -- only enough to understand the cool stuff well enough to
reimplement it in an open and free way. But maybe that won't happen. Maybe
enough people will be fine with using a proprietary file format that it will
reach critical mass.
> I swear that we are not the "big bad company", and we aren't out to take
> advantage of anyone.
I hope I didn't give them impression that I thought that. I think LEGO is
acting in what it believes to be its best interests from a business
perspective. My questions arise from the belief that what's in LEGO's best
interest, however, isn't necessarily the same thing as what's in the LCAD
community's best interest. I think having an additional file format to
choose from (LXF) sure is a nice thing, especially if it opens new doors.
But clearly a free and open file format would serve the LCAD community's
interests better than a proprietary format. Obviously LEGO believes that a
proprietary format will serve LEGO's best interests. Time will tell. It
worked splendidly for Adobe.
> [...] We have no interest or intention of releasing a
> standard file format that doesn't allow the community to add their own
> parts.
Yay!
So why didn't you just say that in the first place? :-)
BTW, does this mean that people can add their own unofficial versions of
official LEGO parts, or will people only be allowed to add unofficial
non-LEGO parts? (I realize that probably sounds like a dumb question, but I
just want to clear up any possible ambiguity on what "their own parts" could
mean.)
Can people add MEGA-BLOKS(R) parts or do they have to stick with LEGO(R)
parts? What if someone creates and releases a library of MEGA-BLOKS parts
in LXF format?
> As mentioned in the announcement, for the forseeable future, the
> LDraw format and LXF will probably live side by side.
When you say "in the forseeable future," do you mean that LXF may replace
the LDraw format someday as the format of choice among cadders? Would LEGO
like to see LXF replace LDraw someday? Or would LEGO like to see LXF and
LDraw co-exist indefinitely?
> [...]
> By the way, the thing that we "want" from the community on this
> collaboration is not to have you write software for us, we are already
> working on that (Digital Designer). Rather we felt it was important to share
> as much as possible with you in order to help drive community.
What if the community embraces the _concepts_ regarding how to describe
parts, but ultimately rejects the LXF _file format_? (I don't mean that as
a hypothetical question -- I think it's a real possibility, albeit small.)
> Imagine if
> the original Mindstorms software had focused on kids, but we had also
> released the details of the RCX to the AFOLs at launch. It wouldn't have
> made much difference to the kids market, since a 10-12 year old wouldn't
> have developed NQC, for instance. But man, it would have made it easier to
> develop that language.
Hmm, well, I think people wanted to program the RCX directly because the
software that LEGO released with it was designed for kids, while the RCX
hardware itself was powerful enough for adults. It's entirely clear to me
why people would want to program a sophisticated piece of hardware like the
RCX, but it's not entirely clear to me why people would want to make tools
which read and write LXF files when the only LEGO product that supports LXF
files is designed for kids. I guess it's kind of a chicken and the egg
problem, huh?
> More information tomorrow!
Ok, thanks for shedding light on questions tonight! Looking forward to more
of your answers tomorrow!
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> More on this post tomorrow, but a couple of quick answers. By compete, I
> just meant that our DD software isn't meant to compete with, say MLCad. It
> is designed for use by kids around the age of 7 or 8. MLCad, I would assume,
> doesn't really become easily usable until the age of 12 or so, right?
I don't know if anyone's done an age study, but that sounds about right.
> [...]
> More info on this tomorrow when I can get feedback from better informed
> colleagues. But hey, in (almost) 3 years working with the community, have I
> ever presented something that doesn't turn out good for the community in the
> end?
Which end? ;-)
> [...]
> Now, that being said, take the NDA discussion out of your statement above
> and you have your answer as to why the community would support LXF... we can
> all share in the work, and if LEGO comes up with "some totally ingenious
> method for encoding part connections", it's not just ours. It's your too.
Is it mine in the sense that I can legally implement the same method in
another file format?
> > I'd love to be wrong, though. But part of my job is to be skeptical. :-)
> It is? Sounds like an interesting job!
Naturally, part of my job at LUGNET is to try to look out for the best
interests of LUGNET and its users. From a technical standpoint, I'm kind of
automatically skeptical of: (a) any binary file format, (b) any proprietary
file format, and (c) any file format with which patents are associated.
> Do you get dental with that? :)
Ya, helps with the knuckle sandwiches. :)
> > > As they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
> > > building tools.
> > This sounds encouraging! :-) Do you mean that Digital Designer 1.0 is but
> > the first in a sequence of ever-more-powerful and exciting software coming
> > down the pike from LEGO? Do you think LEGO ever might release something as
> > powerful as MLCAD?
> I meant that they would graduate to the community developed tools.
Then I imagine LEGO is planning to provide links to these tools from the
lego.com website, so that these kids could find them as they learn and
graduate to more complex demands. This in itself may be the incentive for
tool authors to support the LXF format.
I expect we'll see a press release this summer touting the fact that AFOLs
have embraced the LXF format?
> Don't quote me quite yet on this one, but from what I understand, the
> documentation will be available to all, and yes, you will be able to extend
> the format.
A question for your colleagues: Is it a tagged file format then? (Like
TIFF images, TrueType font files, and ESRI map files -- these are examples
of tagged file formats.)
Will the LXF file format be binary or text-based?
Will the documentation be complete enough that I can write, say, a C program
that converts LDraw parts into LXF parts? Or if I want to convert LDraw to
LXF, am I going to *have to* use the SDK? I guess what I'm asking is, will
the documentation be complete enough that no one will bother reverse
engineering the file format? I'd love this answer to be "yes," because it
means that someone is likely to write open-source command-line-based
conversion utilities in C or Python or Perl, which would be my preferred
method of use on a server.
> This is where I hope that the LDraw community comes together to
> formalize. This will help make it much easier to extend, help to ensure
> quality of the extension. We will need to be involved in this process at
> first though. (The Adobe PostScript example was a good one from another post
> in this thread).
I'm looking forward to following these discussions.
I believe one of the main reasons that the Ogg Vorbis file format was
created is because the MP3 file format is mired by patents. Similarly, one
of the (many) reasons the PNG file format was created is because the GIF
file format is (or was) mired by patents.
I don't know if the patent referred to here:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=8622
covers or restricts use of the LXF format or not... but if it does, then one
thing worth being aware of is that, historically, the geek community tends
to go around roadblocks like these by inventing altogether better and more
open file formats from scratch. MP3 and GIF had a huge advantage over Ogg
and PNG because they were there first and had time to become well
entrenched. LXF, on the other hand, is the newcomer, where LDraw -- the
open file format -- is well entrenched.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Erik Olson writes:
> In my opinion, what killed the community's enthusiuasm for working with LEGO
> was LEGO's intention to patent the file format (and complicate it to do so.)
That's raises an interesting moral and ethical dilemma: Is it morally
acceptable to support the LXF format? Do you think anyone will boycott it?
> Since then, LEGO has obtained a government monopoly on CAD that is so broad,
> it could even be construed to cover LDRAW (if not for the obvious fact that
> LDRAW is prior art, aside from the lack of documentation of that fact.)
Aren't millions of copies of USENET articles dating back to 1994-5
documentation enough?
> At the least, no one can know where they stand without hiring a lawyer.
> Since we are writing code for free, that's not really in the cards.
Hiring a lawyer for this might be a good use of LDraw.org funds. I'll
personally pledge to donate $100 USD toward LDraw.org hiring a patent lawyer
to look for potential issues if someone is serious enough to follow through
with it.
> For this reason, it is necessary for LEGO to freely license its
> recently-acquired "intellectual property" (I emphasize the dubious nature of
> software patents) if it wants something in return, i.e. that we all work
> with LEGO for free. Anything less will leave uncertainty, fear and doubt.
I agree.
> The matter will probably never be clear. I doubt Compaq will license its
> software patents for virtual LEGO.
Compaq (HP?) owns software patents on virtual LEGO???
--Todd
|
|
| |
> == A new LEGO building application ==
> LEGO has been making building software for many years now (like LEGO Creator
> and LEGO CAD). In (or around) June we will be releasing the latest and best
> version, tentatively codenamed "LEGO Digital Designer." You will be able to
> download it from LEGO.com. It's targeted at kids and novice users, so it's
> not meant to "compete" with the powerful tools that have been developed for
> the LDraw file format. We hope that it'll be a fun and easy to learn way for
> many new users, young and old, to start playing with LEGO bricks in 3D. As
> they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
> building tools.
Does this mean there will be a complex, powerful LEGO building tool to be
released later or does this mean the graduation towards the LDraw tools such
as MLCAD?
> == Our goal is for all LEGO-style building software to work together ==
> We think all LEGO builders, inside and outside the company, should have
> tools that suit their skill level and particular requirements, and that you
> should be able to move models between these tools. For many years now we
> have been developing an internal file format, known as LXF, to make this
> kind of interaction possible. Starting a couple years ago, we also solicited
> input from some members of the LDraw community about what they would like to
> see in a new LEGO model format, and we'd like to continue that process. We
> would also like to see the LDraw file format models work with LXF format for
> the same reason -- so that models you build in one program can be used in
> others.
Multiple file formats never seem to work out too well (can you say BETA vs.
VHS? JPG vs PNG?) It's a known fact one format will dominate. The question
now is which will it be for LXF? Most "paint" programs now support multiple
file formats, which is the ONLY way they can remain within the market. If a
paint program only supported jpg, how long will it last before it's
outdated, especially against the new format of png?
The same issue applies here. If the two formats are to remain compatible,
it's necessary that ALL, and I mean EVERY single application using LEGO
parts for 3D render support all file formats. This means that DD MUST
support the LDraw file format. This means that MLCAD (et al) MUST support
the LXF file format.
If this is not accomplished, one of these two formats will fail.
Last year, I was working on a "top secret" project to create a 3D render
application for use on the web, such that models could be viewed in "real
time" in a web browser. Unfortunately, I was not met with open arms, and I
have since given up on this project. I found the "proprietary" attitude to
be more than I can handle, ESPECIALLY since the applications themselves
wouldn't have existed without the OPEN SOURCE modeling unit (the LDraw Part).
I don't believe in proprietary control of anything. I believe anything
dealing with a common and popular area should be shared to EVERYONE! This is
how development is achieved. What one person fails to see, another usually does.
I don't, nor would ever, believe that LEGO would take over with LXF or any
application it develops. I am VERY glad LEGO has taken the steps to create
an application geared towards younger fans. Often, I am asked about the CAD
applications by adults who don't know how to do any modeling, so I can see
this software being used just as LEGO says...from basic steps and graduating
towards advanced levels.
I will definitely be keeping my eyes on the modeling future.
> == LDraw Standards Committee (LSC) collaboration ==
> It is absolutely marvelous to see the LDraw community begin a push towards
> formalization. This will, end the long run, make it much easier for LEGO to
> work with directly with the LDraw community on issues of collaboration, and
> future development. Much like the ILTCO provides a “Batphone” between the
> Train community and LEGO, hopefully this is the Batphone to the LDraw community.
This news shocked me when I first heard about it. To be quite honest, I
thought it already existed! One learns something new every day :D
> == Tools for software developers ==
> Unlike many other companies, we have a tradition of trying to encourage the
> work of independent software developers, who want to tinker, revise and/or
> restructure and build on our software. The work done by developers on the
> software in our RIS sets, which operates the RCX, is a great example. In the
> same spirit, we plan to release a Software Development Kit (SDK) based on
> our new building application, with tools that will hopefully prove useful to
> developers that want to work with or try to improve upon the current LEGO
> building software.
This is great!!! I'm just now getting into robotics, and I find the LEGO
version limiting, but a great starting place (aside from that annoying
800x600 screen resolution I can't control >:( ). Once I get the basics, I'll
ditch the LEGO version and head towards another application :)
I'd like to see several SDKs come from LDraw as well, especially in the "How
To Vector" part for application development.
> This is likely to raise some questions:
Really? ;)
> - Will your new building applications open DAT/LDR/MPD files?
> Probably not, but we hope to provide some tools for translating DAT/LDR/MPD
> into LXF. There are many complex issues involved and we will be asking for
> information from the LDraw community to help with this goal.
[edited my comment out]
> - Aren't you just trying to replace the LDraw file format and take over?
> Not at all. We think users and software authors should support whatever
> format they find works the best for them. We developed LXF originally as a
> format for our own use, and we think it might prove useful to everyone. We
> would definitely like to see the tools necessary to go back and forth
> between the two formats, because there is a lot of great stuff out there in
> the LDraw file format.
Ummm...this one has me puzzled. Does LEGO not have a model of every single
piece it's produced in the LXF format?
How were models designed before LXF?
I don't think LEGO has a room full of monkeys painting instructions!! ;)
> - Are you going to release a parts library?
> It makes a lot of sense for us to release parts, as LEGO is the source of
> all official parts anyway. However, we do not yet have a complete plan for
> how or if we can do this, and it's highly unlikely that we'd be able to
> release every part all at once. Your input on this issue is more than
> welcome; please tell us what would be useful for you.
Can I make a special request....before you release any part, can you PLEASE,
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE release a color chart first?
The reason I humbly and respectfully ask this request is to make sure
everyone is on board with the same part. For example, is it light blue,
Maersk blue, sky blue, purple blue, blue, dark blue, chrome blue? Ok, you
can see where this is going.
If the parts are to be "compatible", the first thing to do is start working
on the color code, to make sure the files CAN be used together. More
importantly, it can give other sites and applications time to start coding
the updates now, in anticipation for the June release.
> - Is the LXF format going to be open, will you publish it and will we be
> able to extend it?
> We will provide all of the necessary information in the SDK so that
> independent developers can make their own tools that use LXF. However, as
> many developers will tell you, it's good to try and manage the growth of a
> format to some extent, so we would like to maintain the official list of
> what the format includes.
[no comment at this time on this one]
> - Where can I get more information about how LXF works? Can I see LEGO
> Digital Designer?
> Since the software is still in development, we are not able to legally
> release it for viewing. In June, you will be able to download the program
> for usage. That being said, we have beginning to open a dialog with the
> LDraw software developers under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA). This will
> allow us to get their feedback on the SDK development, implementation
> concepts, and future developments. Unfortunately, since the issues involved
> with how this software works relates directly to our core business, we have
> to be careful what is shared with the outside world.
Will the SDK be released along with DD?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been working with modeling for over a year now. I currently use MLCAD,
L3P, and POV-Ray for my modeling experience. I've toyed with other tools,
but found them lacking or buggy, so I've stuck with just these three.
I'm hoping this news doesn't stop the production of current applications
used by fans. I'd still like to see the next step in "snapping parts" become
a reality. I'd also like to see more user-friendly applications produced so
when the graduation does happen, it's not a total shock, especially from a
"basic" version.
Software is the key component in development. Although the LDraw parts are
the fundamental part of the software for rendering, if it didn't exist,
someone else would have worked on the file concept. I've dabbled a few times
to rewrite some of the LDraw files into a totally different format, but just
for internal use, as I know a new format wouldn't have been accepted. This
was needed for the web render project.
The introduction of a new file format has more impact than just modeling.
There are other venues that take full advantage of parts, such as Peeron's
inventory listing. With this in mind, is there a way to:
1)Create a universal naming convention of files? What a 1x2 brick is called
in DD should also be called in LDraw. This would require the cooperation
between LEGO and LDraw.
2)Create an open source database of such a listing from #1. This would
definitely help out in compatibility between sites, as well as future
application development. Would there be an issue of proprietary control
should such a database be created? Cause you can bet I'll be creating one if
the part names are different.
Now, let me take a moment to introduce myself. Some of you may already know
who I am, but most of you won't.
My name is Robert, and I've been "in the shadows". I've been monitoring
LUGNET, BrickLink, FBTB, and Peeron in terms of community interaction.
I haven't posted much because I didn't want to come across as a loudmouth
trouble maker.
But, in the past couple of months, I've started noticing a trend which has
me excited. It seems the community sites are now beginning to work together,
and more importantly, work towards a single, unified set of standards.
Since LEGO is now becomming a bigger part of this world, it's even more
exciting. It boils down to a large company now recognizes this isn't kids
play, but a very important aspect in many adult lives. LEGO is much more
than a toy. It's a community of all types of people.
And since this community seems to be getting stronger, I've felt it's time
to voice myself again.
What better way than with this post. A perfect example of working towards a
single goal with yet another new application.
:)
Have a great day, and build well!
=EO=
|
|
| |
Hi Jake!
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> == A new LEGO building application ==
> LEGO has been making building software for many years now (like LEGO Creator
> and LEGO CAD). In (or around) June we will be releasing the latest and best
> version, tentatively codenamed "LEGO Digital Designer." You will be able to
> download it from LEGO.com. It's targeted at kids and novice users, so it's
> not meant to "compete" with the powerful tools that have been developed for
> the LDraw file format. We hope that it'll be a fun and easy to learn way for
> many new users, young and old, to start playing with LEGO bricks in 3D. As
> they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
> building tools.
Sounds great!
> == Our goal is for all LEGO-style building software to work together ==
> We think all LEGO builders, inside and outside the company, should have
> tools that suit their skill level and particular requirements, and that you
> should be able to move models between these tools. For many years now we
> have been developing an internal file format, known as LXF, to make this
> kind of interaction possible. Starting a couple years ago, we also solicited
> input from some members of the LDraw community about what they would like to
> see in a new LEGO model format, and we'd like to continue that process. We
> would also like to see the LDraw file format models work with LXF format for
> the same reason -- so that models you build in one program can be used in
> others.
I'm very excited by this idea. I'm glad you are planning to work with what
the community has developed and used. As you mentioned in the previous
paragraph, this provides an excellent opportunity for kids using LDD to
graduate to more complex, community-developed tools and continue using the
models they've created with your software. That level of pledged
interactivity demonstrates to me LEGO's commitment to honoring the time and
energy the community has put into developing their own free tools.
> == LDraw Standards Committee (LSC) collaboration ==
> It is absolutely marvelous to see the LDraw community begin a push towards
> formalization. This will, end the long run, make it much easier for LEGO to
> work with directly with the LDraw community on issues of collaboration, and
> future development. Much like the ILTCO provides a “Batphone” between the
> Train community and LEGO, hopefully this is the Batphone to the LDraw community.
Thanks for the nod :-) I'm honored to have the LDraw community's efforts in
this area recognized, from both a technical and an organizational standpoint.
I've snipped the rest, as people more technically competent than I have
started asking what I think are the right questions. I think Todd's
questions are great, and necessary for all here to be considering. I hope
he's read positively - as from his posts he's indicated his excitement over
this, but also his legitimate reservations. Thanks, Jake, for taking the
time to engage and answer his questions.
I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out of this project! Thanks for
sharing!
-Tim
|
|
| |
I have been watching this thread with interest. Personally I find the
prospect that LEGO is going to potentially open up some of their
intellectual property to the community pretty interesting and not something
you see happen very often.
How they do this remains to be seen and there has been an awful lot of
speculation on what it all means. I am actually somewhat surprised with
regard to the level of skepticism voiced on this topic. The prevailing
thought seems to be that LEGO is trying to take over the area of the
community that has been to date served by L-Draw.
More thoughts below ...
"Todd Lehman" <todd@lugnet.com> wrote in message
news:HE57M8.1rso@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> > I can totally respect that. I would just ask that you give the benefits
> > equal thought too. What do you get by buying in?
>
> Honestly, I don't see any benefits for the LCAD community in supporting • the
> LXF format, unless the LXF format is so many more light years ahead of the
> LDraw format that the effort of supporting LXF would be miniscule compared
> to the benefits.
Not seeing any benefit is a pretty bold statement - cetainly not one that
should be made on the community's behalf based on the limited knowledge we
have regarding what LEGO is really going to do.
Right now there is a group of people in the LEGO community who create L-Draw
fomatted parts. Some of these parts take a long time - see this article -
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=4615. I can't fathom the time and
effort to create this part. I greatly appreciate the fact that people are
willing to do this although to be honest, I wonder if it is sustainable. Is
there a finite number of people willing to be part authors for no pay and
little recognition?
Wouldn't it be nice if it was simply avaible from LEGO is a parts library?
Presumably it wouldn't need to be verified - it comes directly from the
source. Currently L-Draw parts are reverse engineered from real parts (or
they are supposed to be). That has to be an error prone and time consuming
process.
Suppose that LEGO releases a new LXF formatted parts library every month.
Now suppose that new elements are included in the parts library in the same
month that sets that contain them hit the street. There is zero ramp time
for users of CAD tools (assuming they support the LXF format) to start using
these new parts. They don't have to be reverse engineered, they don't have
to be verified, they don't have to live in the Parts Tracker for some
unknown period of time - they are ready to use.
>
> But if that's the case, then why wouldn't the LCAD community just raise • the
> LDraw format's capabilities to the level of LXF's capabilities and forget
> about native LXF support?
Again, maybe, maybe not. Raising the capabilities of the LDraw file format
may be a fair amount of work too. Some of the features in LXF may not be
implementable with the L-Draw format. What if the LXF format supports
collision detection and/or connection points (the ability to define legal
connections)? I have built models where parts were askew by one or two
L-Draw units (LDU) were not obvious until I rendered it with POV. By that
time it is pretty late in the instruction creation process for me - it would
be nice to know that two parts were intruding on each others space.
Imagine if the train track parts were smart enough to understand what a
legal connection is. A replacement for Track Designer might not be as much
work for someone to undertake. Right now no one can update or enhance Track
Designer because no one knows where the source code is! So the choice is to
either live with what we have or write a new one from scratch and
re-engineering all of he connection smartness that Track Designer currently
has. If the LXF library includes connection points, this may not be such a
daunting task.
>
> Additionally, if LEGO releases parts in LXF format, and someone writes an
> LXF-to-LDR converter, what's to be gained by adding native LXF support to
> tools like MLCAD when it would be easier simply to convert all the LXF • parts
> to LDR parts?
If the converter is really good and easy to use, probably not much. If the
converter is cumbersome and produces poorly converted parts, then support
for LXF may provide the application developer quite a bit. Developers want
access to the broadest library of high quality parts. If that library is
the L-Draw based one, they will support that. If LXF looks like it will be
a better solution and/or allow them to solve problems they currently can't,
then they will add support for LXF.
>
> Also, if LXF promises increased modeling capabilities (because it's a lot
> more sophisticated file format), why will developers spend their time
> learning to work with a proprietary format when they could instead be
> developing a free and open format? (I'm not saying they won't, I'm just
> having a little trouble seeing the motivation.)
I suspect the motivation would come from not wanting to re-invent the wheel
simply for the sake of re-inventing the wheel. With a community comprised
of volunteer developers, if they can get their application functioning,
released and and satisfying a need quickly using LXF, I would imagine they
would do it.
Adding more to the development cycle in order to add support for new
constructs to the existing L-Draw format to avoid using LXF doesn't make a
lot of sense from a time management perspective. However, engineering
fields are fraught with NIH and people do things all the time that other
people have already done simply because they want to. Just because you can
do something doesn't mean you should. Freeware and Shareware do not follow
the same rules of development that commerical development does (which can be
both good and bad) and people don't make techncial decision based on
business factors (make vs. buy).
>
> It seems to me that the real gain here for the LCAD community, long term,
> may simply be exposure to cool algorithms and data structures. To really
> benefit from these doesn't require recoding software to support the LXF
> format -- only enough to understand the cool stuff well enough to
> reimplement it in an open and free way. But maybe that won't happen. • Maybe
> enough people will be fine with using a proprietary file format that it • will
> reach critical mass.
I don't understand the requirement/mandate for open and free. I don't see
open and free as joined at the hip either. Something can be free without
being open. There are lots of things people can download and use without
access to the source code and the internal data structures.
We all use LUGNET on a regular basis and we can't go off and look at the
LUGNET internals. We don't know how all of the data is stored and accessed.
We know there is a web interface and how to interact with that. We know
there is an NNTP interface and how to interact with that.
> > I swear that we are not the "big bad company", and we aren't out to take
> > advantage of anyone.
>
> I hope I didn't give them impression that I thought that. I think LEGO is
> acting in what it believes to be its best interests from a business
> perspective. My questions arise from the belief that what's in LEGO's • best
> interest, however, isn't necessarily the same thing as what's in the LCAD
> community's best interest. I think having an additional file format to
> choose from (LXF) sure is a nice thing, especially if it opens new doors.
> But clearly a free and open file format would serve the LCAD community's
> interests better than a proprietary format. Obviously LEGO believes that • a
> proprietary format will serve LEGO's best interests. Time will tell. It
> worked splendidly for Adobe.
While not a public company, LEGO is still a for profit company. The
decisions they make have to be in line with their business goals and
objectives. If they have concepts or projects that are not in line with
their business goals it is highly unlikely they will get funded. Most
companies have some skunk works projects that fly under the radar screen but
at some point (usually when they are exposed to customers) they have to
answer to business people. How will this project help the company make
money? If it doesn't, then it has to be justified with other means:
Community good will, cutomer satisfaction, competitive differentiation,
etc. - lots of reasons that are much harder to attach dollar figures to.
Imagine you are an excutive at LEGO and you get a proposal to release all of
your elements in a CAD format so the customers can do their own designs on a
computer. You can envision the line of questioning:
Project Manager: My proposal is to release all of our part models as
library parts in DXF format. It will allow our customers to design their
own models, something they have been asking to do for years. By releasing
in DXF we don't have to build a new CAD tool - which would be expensive -
but people would use their own (AutoCAD, ProEngineer, etc.).
Executive: Isn't that risky? Couldn't our competitors copy our parts much
easier?
Project Manager: I suppose. But many of our parts are already in a CAD
format on the Internet - there is a group of people who reverse engineer our
parts and publish them in this "L-Draw" format.
Executive: Really? How good are they?
Project Manager: They are really good although the more complex ones take
them some time to do and tend to have more errors.
Executive: Is there a big demand for this?
Project Manager: Growing - particulary with the adult market. There are
books available and more being written and no less than a half a dozen free
applications that allow people to create very detailed models and
instructions. It will also generate a lot of good will with a very loyal
part of our customer base. It also helps broaden the brand by having third
parties creating books and publishing models. We gain exposure without
having to spend the resources to write and publish books.
Executive: I am concerned about simply publishing our CAD files, is there a
middle ground?
Project Manager: Maybe. We might be able to define a neutral format or an
API that allows use of our data but limit the exposure of our sensitive
information. But there are a lot of clever people out there. Eventually
someone will reverse engineer it just like they did with MindStorms.
Executive: Maybe but it seems less risky, bring me a proposal based on that
concept. We also need to float this idea to some of these "L-Draw" people
and see what they think.
[ ... lots of snippage ... ]
These are my thoughts on this subject for now, I am really interested in
this thread. I make a living in the CAD industry (Electical Engineering)
and this whole topic isn't all that different than what I deal with on a
regular basis. In fact, It is surprising how similar this thread is.
For example - One of my customers is designing an ASIC (a custom chip) with
a really large semiconductor company (XYZ) and is concerned about the signal
integrity effects that ASIC will create when placed on a printed circuit
board. The customer would like to run a signal integrity analysis on the
design including the IO of the ASIC. They need a model of the ASIC IO and
only XYZ is really qualified to provide it.
However, if XYZ makes their IO models available on their web site for anyone
to download, their competitors can gain insight into their semiconductor
manufacturing process. So XYZ doesn't really want to give away IO models,
they would rather the customer create their own models (which they can do
but it is a slow, error prone process) from information published in XYZ's
databooks. But in some cases they have to provide models (customers really
can exert a lot of pressure if so inclined). So they provide models that
contain the minimum amount of information that the customer needs in order
to get their analysis done. It's a crappy way to get the information but
that is what happens.
Now XYZ is starting to provide encrypted models. Customer is happy because
they can do an analysis. XYZ is happy because they are not exposing trade
secrets. Some people still believe XYZ should make source avaible because
"we are a valued customer".
It is all about protecting intellectual property and satisfying the
customer - a hard line to balance on.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com
http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
<snipped Jake's announcement for brevity - since I'm sure you've all read it
already!>
First of all, this sounds very spiffy. It shows that LEGO is really taking
the AFOL community seriously, and that is (and always will be) "a good
thing"(tm).
My question: Will this software, or perhaps 'version 2.0', support
animation? Lots of people are doing animation using various LDraw tools, if
the LEGO software supported it, it would make for a more seamless
environment for budding film makers.
Hey - "film makers" - sounds like a tie-in to the existing "Movie Maker"
sets! Hmmm... :-)
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Mike Walsh writes:
> I have been watching this thread with interest. Personally I find the
> prospect that LEGO is going to potentially open up some of their
> intellectual property to the community pretty interesting and not something
> you see happen very often.
I agree and I think it'll represent a great step toward enhanced
collaboration with the community.
> How they do this remains to be seen and there has been an awful lot of
> speculation on what it all means. I am actually somewhat surprised with
> regard to the level of skepticism voiced on this topic. The prevailing
> thought seems to be that LEGO is trying to take over the area of the
> community that has been to date served by L-Draw.
I don't get that impression... I think LEGO will strive to work with the
LCAD/LDraw community to
establish new standards. I think the skepticism arises out of uncertainty
about the level of openness
of the file formats and out of concerns about LEGO patents and possible
cross-platform issues.
If the LXF format is as flexible, extensible, and wonderful as I think we
expect it to be, then it's
certainly within the realm of possibility that the LXF format could totally
replace the LDraw file
format within a year or two. Now I don't mean to suggest that tools like
MLCAD would be obsolete,
only that the LDR/MPD/DAT format may become obsolescent. Is that good or
bad? I don't know. I
know I'd be sad to see an open format be replaced with a proprietary one,
especially one
encumbered by patents.
*If* this happens, and we're all sharing LXF files in the future instead of
LDR/MPD/DAT files, it
*could* still be a totally beautiful thing. It seems likely, though, that
in order to discuss intimate
details of parts creation in LXF format, it will be necessary to convert the
LXF part file into ASCII text
through some sort of data structure dump. Some sort of LXF-dumping syntax
is likely to emerge
quickly and be standardized upon. (Perhaps LEGO will provide a tool for
this, perhaps not.) The
reverse will also be needed in order to update part files with changes.
Wouldn't XML be a logical
choice for the ASCII dumping syntax? And if so, why not create new parts
masters in XML instead of
LXF? A part master in XML could then be turned into .lxf, .dat, .pov, etc.
It seems patently obvious (no pun intended) to me that an XML-based part
masters would be a lot
more general and give more freedom than LXF-based masters. I don't know how
I'd manipulate LXF
files in Perl or Java, for example.
If you're a parts designer, would you rather design parts directly in LEGO's
proprietary LXF format or
instead in an open-standards XML-based format that could easily be
translated to LXF as a special
case?
> > > I can totally respect that. I would just ask that you give the benefits
> > > equal thought too. What do you get by buying in?
> >
> > Honestly, I don't see any benefits for the LCAD community in supporting the
> > LXF format, unless the LXF format is so many more light years ahead of the
> > LDraw format that the effort of supporting LXF would be miniscule compared
> > to the benefits.
>
> Not seeing any benefit is a pretty bold statement -
Ok, I think you missed the "unless" clause of my sentence above. :-)
> cetainly not one that should be made on the community's behalf based on
> the limited knowledge we have regarding what LEGO is really going to do.
I'm sorry if that was confusing. I didn't mean to make a statement on the
LCAD community's behalf.
What I mean is that *I* don't see anything that the LCAD community has to
gain by supporting the
LXF format, unless the LXF format is light years ahead of the LDraw format
(and it may well be).
> [...]
> Wouldn't it be nice if it was simply avaible from LEGO is a parts library?
> Presumably it wouldn't need to be verified - it comes directly from the
> source.
Absolutely, that would be awesome. That's been sometime wished for by many
for a long, long
time.
> [...]
> Suppose that LEGO releases a new LXF formatted parts library every month.
> Now suppose that new elements are included in the parts library in the same
> month that sets that contain them hit the street. There is zero ramp time
> for users of CAD tools (assuming they support the LXF format) to start using
> these new parts.
In order to benefit from the data contained within the parts library, is it
absolutely necessary for CAD
tools to support LXF natively?
Couldn't a tool simply convert the LXF parts into a neutral, open-standard
format and forget about
LXF?
> Again, maybe, maybe not. Raising the capabilities of the LDraw file format
> may be a fair amount of work too. Some of the features in LXF may not be
> implementable with the L-Draw format. What if the LXF format supports
> collision detection and/or connection points (the ability to define legal
> connections)? I have built models where parts were askew by one or two
> L-Draw units (LDU) were not obvious until I rendered it with POV. By that
> time it is pretty late in the instruction creation process for me - it would
> be nice to know that two parts were intruding on each others space.
>
> Imagine if the train track parts were smart enough to understand what a
> legal connection is. A replacement for Track Designer might not be as much
> work for someone to undertake. Right now no one can update or enhance Track
> Designer because no one knows where the source code is! So the choice is to
> either live with what we have or write a new one from scratch and
> re-engineering all of he connection smartness that Track Designer currently
> has. If the LXF library includes connection points, this may not be such a
> daunting task.
>
> If the converter is really good and easy to use, probably not much. If the
> converter is cumbersome and produces poorly converted parts, then support
> for LXF may provide the application developer quite a bit. Developers want
> access to the broadest library of high quality parts. If that library is
> the L-Draw based one, they will support that. If LXF looks like it will be
> a better solution and/or allow them to solve problems they currently can't,
> then they will add support for LXF.
Points well taken. But is that better than extracting the data from the LXF
parts libraries and
converting the parts to a new, slightly more general, vendor-neutral,
open-standard file format
that's owned by the open LCAD community?
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Todd Lehman wrote:
> If you're a parts designer, would you rather design parts directly in LEGO's
> proprietary LXF format or
> instead in an open-standards XML-based format that could easily be
> translated to LXF as a special
> case?
I don't think that's really a fair and answerable question. As a parts designer, I'd
rather work in the format that is (a) the least work for me and (b) gives me the
results I want. As a parts designer, I'm not terribly concerned about abstract issue
like openness.
Steve
|
|
| |
I can see this being a great thing as long as:
1.it doesnt have any artificial limits on it
2.the LXF file format is documented and there are no restrictions on using
it (ref the TLC patents mentioned earlier in the thread)
3.it has support for all the colors lego bricks come in (and allows you to
use any part in any color)
4.it has part definitions for all the parts for which TLC has computer
models of (its probobly likely that they dont have computer models of a
whole pile of really old stuff)
5.it has pattern definitions for all the patterned parts for which TLC has
computer representations of (again, they probobly dont have all the older
stuff online)
6.it handles stickers somehow (again, coming with a library of sticker
definitions where possible)
7.there is a way to add new parts to the library (for all the parts TLC
doesnt release because e.g. they dont have cad models of them)
and 8.there is a clear licence governing what we can & cant do with the
program, parts library and defintions released by LEGO, as well as what we
can & cant do with output from the program.
|
|
| |
How complete will the parts library for this program be?
Will it include all the parts TLC has 3d computer models of or will it be
limited somehow? What about decorated/printed parts? Minifig parts &
accessories? Stickers? Sails and capes and such like?
One important question is the issue of licenced parts. For example:
The Jar-Jar Binks head
The Stormtrooper Helment
The Harry Potter Hogwarts Uniform Torso
The Spiderman torso
The printed bricks and stickers from the various Shell sets
The Mcdonalds parts from the Mcdonalds drive-thru set
etc
etc
How does Lego Direct plan to handle Licenced Parts?
A.not include any licenced parts at all
B.include all licenced parts
or C.include licenced parts in the case where it can get permission from
the licenceholder to do so.
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman <todd@lugnet.com> wrote:
> Will LEGO provide any LXF-to-XML conversion tools? How about LXF-to-SVG?
Isn't that redundant?
[ -> .off-topic.geek ]
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> All,
>
> I would like to take this opportunity to announce a cool new project many
> years in the making. I hope you find this as exciting as I do.
>
> == A new LEGO building application ==
> LEGO has been making building software for many years now (like LEGO Creator
> and LEGO CAD). In (or around) June we will be releasing the latest and best
> version, tentatively codenamed "LEGO Digital Designer." You will be able to
> download it from LEGO.com. It's targeted at kids and novice users, so it's
> not meant to "compete" with the powerful tools that have been developed for
> the LDraw file format. We hope that it'll be a fun and easy to learn way for
> many new users, young and old, to start playing with LEGO bricks in 3D. As
> they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
> building tools.
Just one simple question - MacOS X support? Do you intend to provide support
for MacOS X?
Thanks,
Ed Cox
|
|
|
