| Discussion Forum: Thread 266802 |
|
 |
| | | Author: | bje  | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 08:41 | | Subject: | Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
|
I have one of these from but mine have all 4 studs as solid studs
and no hollow studs. Are the renders for this part correct or is mine an undocumented
variant?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 09:00 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| |
I have one of these from but mine have all 4 studs as solid studs
and no hollow studs. Are the renders for this part correct or is mine an undocumented
variant?
|
All the ones I have in White, Black and Light Gray are solid stud.
Solid studs in Studio as well.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 11:52 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| |
I have one of these from but mine have all 4 studs as solid studs
and no hollow studs. Are the renders for this part correct or is mine an undocumented
variant?
|
All the colour images look like LEGO renders and if you look closely, the studs
aren’t hollow, it’s the angle and the logo that make a shadow that may look like
they are.
Only the bad yellow render (second image, not the one you see when you select
Yellow or look at the “User image”) shows more as if the studs were hollow but
it is a very very bad LDraw render.
If you look at the (also LDraw-based) 3D image and the 3D view, they show plain
studs.
I don’t know why they kept that awful render.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 15:40 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | All the colour images look like LEGO renders and if you look closely, the studs
aren’t hollow, it’s the angle and the logo that make a shadow that may look like
they are.
|
Those are not LEGO renders. They are renders from something else. And the images
definitely show hollow studs. I don't know how they could be interpreted
as anything else. If the part really has solid studs, all of the images need
to be replaced.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 15:51 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | All the colour images look like LEGO renders and if you look closely, the studs
aren’t hollow, it’s the angle and the logo that make a shadow that may look like
they are.
|
Those are not LEGO renders. They are renders from something else. And the images
definitely show hollow studs. I don't know how they could be interpreted
as anything else. If the part really has solid studs, all of the images need
to be replaced.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Those are Studio renders from the 2017 image project. We retained all photographs
in that project and only replaced render with render. In this case there were
no official LEGO renders available and our only guideline for accuracy was the
lo-rez LDraw render that was just deleted.
I agree, if the actual part only ever had solid studs all of these images need
to be replaced.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 16:00 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I have red and white.
In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | All the colour images look like LEGO renders and if you look closely, the studs
aren’t hollow, it’s the angle and the logo that make a shadow that may look like
they are.
|
Those are not LEGO renders. They are renders from something else. And the images
definitely show hollow studs. I don't know how they could be interpreted
as anything else. If the part really has solid studs, all of the images need
to be replaced.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Those are Studio renders from the 2017 image project. We retained all photographs
in that project and only replaced render with render. In this case there were
no official LEGO renders available and our only guideline for accuracy was the
lo-rez LDraw render that was just deleted.
I agree, if the actual part only ever had solid studs all of these images need
to be replaced.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
[…]
| | Those are not LEGO renders.
|
|
That was just a guess. They sure are renders and they sure don’t look like usual
LDraw renders.
| | | | They are renders from something else. And the images
definitely show hollow studs.
|
|
I beg to differ.
| | | | I don't know how they could be interpreted
as anything else. If the part really has solid studs, all of the images need
to be replaced.
|
|
The part has solid studs.
| | Those are Studio renders from the 2017 image project.
|
So, as Studio uses LDraw 3D models and already did use LDraw 3D models in 2017
and the LDraw 3D model for 4447 doesn’t have hollow studs and never had hollows
studs (at least there are no traces of such change and the 3D model didn’t change
since 2010), the renders should show plain studs.
(The other parts Studio uses are LDD parts converted to LDraw when the part isn’t
in the official LDraw library, and 1. 4447 has been there for ages, 2. 4447 in
LDD doesn’t have hollow studs either.)
| | We retained all photographs
in that project and only replaced render with render. In this case there were
no official LEGO renders available and our only guideline for accuracy was the
lo-rez LDraw render that was just deleted.
|
But Studio never changed plain studs for hollow studs.
| | I agree, if the actual part only ever had solid studs all of these images need
to be replaced.
|
Yes, at least to show the studs with a better angle.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | anathema | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 16:43 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | and the LDraw 3D model for 4447 doesn’t have hollow studs and never had hollows
studs (at least there are no traces of such change and the 3D model didn’t change
since 2010), the renders should show plain studs.
|
Actually, it did have hollow studs when originally modelled. I fixed it back
in 2009:
0 !HISTORY 2009-02-08 [anathema] Added pivot holes; BFC'd; corrected stud
type
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 23, 2020 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | […]
So, as Studio uses LDraw 3D models and already did use LDraw 3D models in 2017
and the LDraw 3D model for 4447 doesn’t have hollow studs and never had hollows
studs (at least there are no traces of such change and the 3D model didn’t change
since 2010), the renders should show plain studs.
|
So, I stand corrected: the 3D model did have hollow stud, until February 2009,
which is still way older than Studio.
But I still don’t get how the Studio renders used such an obsolete 3D model.
Did BL use a Studio version that is not the same as the released one?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2020 09:30 | | Subject: | Re: Images/Renders Part 4447 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| |
I have one of these from but mine have all 4 studs as solid studs
and no hollow studs. Are the renders for this part correct or is mine an undocumented
variant?
|
This part was produced over a 25-year time period, so I have little doubt that
variants exist. If someone can document that with comparison photos, please
let us know so that we can add an additional note.
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Africa, Western Cape
Netherlands, Groningen
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
United Kingdom, England
