matt> It requires someone with a bit of experience to judge the buildability of a CAD model but that can also be true of brick builds where people mod elements (which is often dissallowed). I suspect most contest judges have a good idea of what is readily available and can spot blatant cheating pretty easily.

And you bring up a good point about LDraw entries, and that is that those of us who build them do need some type of accountability to ensure that the build is actually possible (from both a spatial perspective as well as color usage) if it is to compete against real-life-bricks built entries. I have seen only one contest in which this was a stipulation, and it’s because Tim was involved in it.

Now that I am addressing the right topic, I think I have to change my mind. Andrew and Tim made good points about the online contest being a contest of pictures. I assume however they will acknowledge that ANY method used to create those pictures would have to be accepted as valid including paintings, drawings, “photoshopped” images, etc so long as it was accurately depicting a build possible with LEGO elements. Of course that brings up how to “prove” a design is possible without actually building it IRL but that’s not my problem. :)

What really changed my mind is what Matt said about the nature of online contests, “The spirit of LEGO contests, in my opinion, is based on rewarding people with good ideas.” I have to say that when I think about it I have to agree. As he mentions, humour, innovation and technical skill are what makes winning entries to me. So long as the entry could be made using actual bricks there really is no difference between a picture made by taking a photograph of a MOC or by working it up in LDraw.

Thanks for the discussion.

But Ted! Point #2 in my editorial began to address the issue of unlimited parts, but maybe I should add a few things to clarify why that is not a valid basis for an argument against LDraw. Forgive me if I echo what Tim and Andrew might have already said.

Like I said in the editorial, LDraw library is not unlimited in the sense that I explained. But even it was, unlimited parts do not automatically make a great builder or automatically create great and amazing mocs (obviously this is not true in LDraw, just take a look at my mocs!). This should be fairly obvious, but I think it needs to be explored a little. Often, the best builders have huge part libraries but this is only because they’ve invested time and money into the hobby; if one were to argue that they first acquired their massive parts libraries and then became great builders, that would be just ridiculous. It’s a correlation that some of the best builders have the biggest part libraries, but not cause-and-effect. Also as a side note, I’m not understanding your point on how multiple categories in a contest keep those builders with the most extensive parts libraries from competing.

The spirit of LEGO contests, in my opinion, is based on rewarding people with good ideas. Innovation is what wins contests, not unlimited parts. Look at the winners of the most recent online LEGO contests and I would bet that most of the winners used some type of interesting part usage, or had a great sense of humor, or did something that was never done before, in order to win. LDraw entries should be allowed into this arena because good ideas are not unique to plastic bricks or lines of code.

‘If someone draws them well enough (eg. Mike Rayhawk) I like them too.’ was me trying to imply that I would accept a drawing if it was done well enough. It would have to be an accurate representation of a LEGO model though.

Furthermore the “red herring” you claim is a “red herring” of your own devising. You can’t complain about LDraw users using expensive parts and accept them from people who are rich enough to afford them.

And I believe some people have taken laptops showcasing (in full 3D) various LDraw models to conferences and they have been broadly well received.

Like Tim (Gambort), my interest is in a LEGO creation’s design and presentation, not whether or not it’s been built from physical bricks (as demonstrated by our fairly extensive CAD category of virtual creations here on TBB).

If I were to go to a convention and see a printout of an LDraw design, I might see that differently (conventions are about seeing the LEGO creation in person), but in the online world, I don’t really distinguish between a well-photographed physical model and a well-rendered virtual model. In fact, as more builders take the time to post-process their photos and as rendering becomes more and more photo-realistic, at some point the line is going to blur. As someone interested in LEGO as an expression of creativity (and possiblity), I’m fine with that.

I understand that some contests allow LDraw and I would be happy to see more that offer LDraw their own category but you have not answered my question: if I accurately draw a MOC should I be able to enter that in contests and displays on an equal footing with in real-life (IRL) MOCs? For most people the answer is no and nothing so far presented is going to change that view.

As for the red-herring of “wallet-size”, this is also dealt with by most contests by having a parts limit or baseplate-size limit or multiple categories and combinations of all three approaches. I don’t generally share that objection to LDraw due to these limits in most contests that apply to both virtual and IRL MOCs. I was simply pointing out a major omission in the thesis.

Comparing MOCs to pictures of MOCs is like comparing apples to pictures of apples. Just not the same thing. Equally valid with both different and similar difficulties and skills but in the end, not the same.

I think more tools like that would make the LPub stuff even better.

I guess you have a different take on the hobby to me. I like it for seeing great *creations* in the LEGO medium. If someone draws them well enough (eg. Mike Rayhawk) I like them too. The actual ABS is of secondary importance to me, the talent displayed in the creation (and presentation) is more important.

There is also the question of whether or not this is LEGO building. If I painted a realistic picture of a LEGO creation that showed only accurate, possible building techniques should that be allowed? What about a pencil sketch?

LDraw is a great tool, as your final point makes clear, but there is no basis for allowing such in contests. Are we to start allowing LDraw renderings at Fests and Cons? Maybe I should take good photos of my MOCs and put them on the table at our clubs next public display. That would be sure to impress people and encourage them to build or join our club.

Promote the tool but I think you are barking up the wrong tree asking for more.

hehehe ‘thoughtfree’ – that made me chuckle.

At any rate, I primarily use LDraw for the last point mentioned by Matt – to virtually “record” models I’ve built in real life, freeing up the bricks for other creations. This is especially useful if you’ve got a small collection! I’ve also found that the process of methodically rebuilding a model as I enter it in LDraw often helps me find ways to improve the construction.

Last but not least, Mac users will want to check out Bricksmith for building LDraw models. Have fun!