LEGO Pet Peeves

[dr_spock]

The challenge with plastic injecting ABS into a 32x32 size plate would be the part cooling unevenly and warping. You can see that too if you 3D print large parts in ABS.

 

[DigitalDreams]

On 17/04/2018 at 9:30 PM, Erik Leppen said:

4. That MLCad still defaults to the old colors with no way to change them (but I guess MLCad is just old...)

5. That LDView part list export seems to sort the part list by part ID, which is about the least intuitive way possible.

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood your problem with MLCad, but if you're talking about the default colours on the Colorbar Toolbar, you can right-click on any of the 16 colour squares and replace them with any colour you want. I imagine most MLCad users use this to replace the old greys with the new, and I also removed something else (possibly pink?) to get (dark)tan in there too.

If it's of any use to you for LDView, there is a javascript-based LDView parts list re-sorter that I wrote years ago.

[Erik Leppen]

8 hours ago, DigitalDreams said:

Perhaps I've misunderstood your problem with MLCad, but if you're talking about the default colours on the Colorbar Toolbar, you can right-click on any of the 16 colour squares and replace them with any colour you want. I imagine most MLCad users use this to replace the old greys with the new, and I also removed something else (possibly pink?) to get (dark)tan in there too.

Wow, that's good to know! That's quite something! How could I work for years with this program and not know this? (I'm sure I read somewhere on a tutorial page or something that it couldn't be changed. And then to think that the control to do it is so simple. Thank you! (your username suits you well) :D

I immediately changed the 16 base colors to my liking :)

I don't use the LDview part list export that often anymore. I found out recently you could import LDraw models into BrickStock, which works great (I just found out today you can import Brickstock files into Bricklink wanted lists, and with the Buy All feature from Bricklink this means the route from creating a model to buying all the parts needed is now conveniently short :D

[DigitalDreams]

8 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Wow, that's good to know! That's quite something! How could I work for years with this program and not know this?

It's one of those program features filed under "cunningly hidden". Or perhaps it's "fiendishly disguised", I get the two mixed up

[Ravelino]

My single personal pet peeves would be that TLG didn't come up with a way to buy official older sets or bricks.. Personally I would love to pay extra (up to a certain limit) for a way to buy older sets and not fill up some "lego-enthusiast"'s piggy bank who clearly has a monthly lego budget of ten grand(figure of speech people) and buys 10 Modulars UCS's CMF boxes or other high-in-demand sets and bricks with the clear intention of reselling them 10 years later at double(or higher) prices...

Also the fact that I have to pay 10+ euros a piece to that same kind of guy/gal to replace (now) rare pieces lost in time and space (moving, mom's vacume cleaner) or destroyed by a younger me(or (hopefully for them) accidentally by people around me) in the days I wasn't as careful with my collection...

It isn't as easy as it sounds I know but for a company the size of TLG it's not impossible and would in the long run(it's been around for more than 60 years it will be around for another 100 IMO) it would actually be quite lucrative if a bit risky..

Set a barrier for the sets like Ferrari/Lamborghini does with their High end(really? Ferrari/Lamborghini are already high end but oh well) cars like the Enzo and the Reventon.."You want the Green Grocer? Show us you have at least 10 modulars in your posession and for an extra 50 euros/dollars on top of MSRP you can order it"..."You want that yellow bird used as a figure head in the Caribbean Clipper? Show proof that you have the Original set and you can order it from us at 200% inflation rate" (the afore mentioned lost in time and space piece I still haven't bought because of the price)

Would solve the unemployment problem in the world pretty quick too..Imagine a lego factory in every middle sized(100.000+ inhabitants) city to supply the "niche" of long time Lego fans all around the globe and instantaneously collapse the market for these so called "enthusiasts" who're just in it for the money mostly anyway

Agree as I might with for example AmperZand's torso problem(fleshy/yellow necklines) I understand the only true resolution would be for those torsos that have no choice IE a bare chested or deep decolleté'd one to issue both a fleshy as a yellow one but that is too much to ask really

Edited April 30, 2018 by Ravelino

[MAB]

^ Would that really help?

If LEGO sets the price to be say 2x RRP for a retired set then although that sets the upper price a reseller can get, they can still buy and make a profit on the set but it will just be capped at whatever LEGO charges. And they will have the original, whereas yours will be a modern variant maybe in different packaging (or are you expecting them to supply the original box exactly as it was issued in the past). If they are expected to pack inventories, stickers and instructions and package sets in original boxes on demand, then you are likely to need to be paying top reseller prices for the service not just 2x RRP, as that is not a volume business. If they are going to store hundreds of thousands of sets, again, there will be a premium as they will need a vast warehouse somewhere, plus eventually they will all be sold.

LEGO is a time-volume sales business. Even they clear out sets from time to time at a discount as they want them gone.

I also think it would be a dangerous route. If you could buy, let's say a Cafe Corner, there is no incentive for them to keep redesigning more buildings. Once they get to about 20 modulars, they could just say buy the old stuff. The money made from people new to lego buying old sets at higher prices would outweigh the need to sell new sets to old buyers.

 

As for the if you lose a piece idea, they do this through bricks and pieces. Lose a piece, you can buy it. There is just a time after which they run out of parts. They cannot keep every part in stock, forever.

[ShaydDeGrai]

On April 30, 2018 at 2:24 PM, MAB said:

I also think it would be a dangerous route. If you could buy, let's say a Cafe Corner, there is no incentive for them to keep redesigning more buildings. Once they get to about 20 modulars, they could just say buy the old stuff. The money made from people new to lego buying old sets at higher prices would outweigh the need to sell new sets to old buyers.

This touches upon one of my newer pet peeves, the recent flirtation with reissued sets without significant renovation.  Something like the new UCS Millenium Falcon is borderline, but at least it has something of an interior to difference it from the prior UCS MF; but things like the Taj Mahal and the Winter Toy Shop are basically just digging into the vault and re-issuing long since discontinued sets.  Fortunately this hasn't happened _much_ yet, but I'd hate for it to become a trend.

I'm not a Lego Investor/Scalper, so I don't really care what that practice might do to the after-market price of mint condition kits that have been sitting in someone's closet for a decade.  And I don't begrudge lines like Lego Star Wars for revisiting popular subject matter on a regular basis (how many walkers, snow speeders and TIE fighters have we had at this point?); every new generation of fans wants these _models_ (as opposed to AFOLs who want specific _kits_) and at least TLG varies the design, scale, building techniques and/or associated builds such that you're at least getting a different take on a familiar theme when the "latest revision" comes out.

What bothers _me_ about near verbatim re-issues, is that there is only so much room in the line-up for high-end landmark kits (like the Taj Mahal) or specialty themes (like Winter Village and the Toy Shop) and burning those slots on re-issues means we have to wait another year or two before we see something _new_.  I already own the Taj Mahal (and Tower Bridge, and Sydney Opera House, and The Eiffel Tower, and Big Ben, etc.) and when I think about all the other great examples of architecture in the world that would make fun, interesting and challenging builds but have not yet been explored, I get annoyed by the fact that TLG blew the dust off a ten year old model, added a brick separator and gave it a new kit number.

I get that some people might have missed something the first time 'round and don't want to go the time or expense of bricklinking the parts or tracking down an overpriced, mint-in-box original, but I'd still rather see variations on a theme rather than straight-up re-issues.  If TLG wants to issue a new Toy Shop for the winter village line, I'm fine with that - just make it a _different_ Toy Shop, my winter village is large enough to support two stores in the same market sector.  As nice and historically significant as something like the Cafe Corner is, I'd much rather see them revisit the generic concept of a "Hotel above a Restaurant" and give us all a fresh building than a repackaging of the exact model they offered us 11 years ago (before a lot of us even realized we wanted modular buildings).

After the Toy Shop re-release, I was concerned when I heard rumors that the next year's kit was going to be the "Holiday Train" and was (eventually) relieved to discover that the 10254 Winter Holiday Train was a very different set than the prior 10173 Holiday Train, but my point is that (at least in _my_ mind) I shouldn't have had reason to be concerned in the first place.  An expectation for new and innovative sets is something we should be able to take for granted, especially in lines that only see one or two new additions per year.  New takes on old ideas are fine, but leave legacy sets to the aftermarket to sort out, don't displace new ideas with re-issues.

 

[MAB]

I'm pretty much of a similar view. Although I don't mind the Taj Mahal re-issue. In that case, I imagine it was re-release the TM or release nothing, rather than the re-release actually stopping the design and sale of something else. They probably just decided they could make money by re-issuing it with no design changes. No doubt they could have made some design changes, but if it was the same scale, it would have looked similar as it is based on a real buulding so they might as well just go with what they have. Whereas with the modulars, any re-release probably would take up a modular slot stopping something new, and could be redesigned as it is not depicting any real place so the designer has much more creative freedom in the design.

I was quite pleased with the UCS MF Update. It was overdue, and clearly wanted by the buying public and they updated it significantly. Much better than a re-issue of the old.

 

The odd one or two flagship sets, I'm not too worried about. They could do things like Imperial Flagship and Emerald Night and probably please more people than they annoy. But if they cycle through the Modulars, repeating them to give new buyers a chance to get the old, I think they do detract from the new. Give everyone 2x new, rather than 1x new and 1x old. I'd prefer they did a new ship like IF and a new train like EN, but at least re-issues there are unlikely to affect other new sets as they are not making similar sets currently.

[Aanchir]

I heard somewhere that the reason for the Winter Toy Shop reissue was that LEGO had been planning to END the Winter Village line with Santa’s Workshop and didn’t change their mind until it was too late to get a brand-new design from concept to production in time for the holidays. In cases like that where development resources are limited, a reissue might be the difference between getting a set in that particular category or none at all. So I think that particular case might merit a pass.

[x105Black]

21 hours ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

This touches upon one of my newer pet peeves, the recent flirtation with reissued sets without significant renovation.  Something like the new UCS Millenium Falcon is borderline, but at least it has something of an interior to difference it from the prior UCS MF; but things like the Taj Mahal and the Winter Toy Shop are basically just digging into the vault and re-issuing long since discontinued sets.  Fortunately this hasn't happened _much_ yet, but I'd hate for it to become a trend.

20 hours ago, MAB said:

I'm pretty much of a similar view.

And I'm of the opposite view.  I don't mind some reissues now and then.

21 hours ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

I'm not a Lego Investor/Scalper, so I don't really care what that practice might do to the after-market price of mint condition kits that have been sitting in someone's closet for a decade.

I'm not either, though I do have some things I hold onto for resale.  I am not the type of person to speculate on the LEGO market and hope to make a 100-200% profit on large sets, and while I appreciate these people keeping sets around and available, I think their practices are distasteful.  So in that spirit, I enjoy seeing highly sought after sets return for sale officially from LEGO.

20 hours ago, MAB said:

The odd one or two flagship sets, I'm not too worried about. They could do things like Imperial Flagship and Emerald Night and probably please more people than they annoy.

This is where I stand.  There are a lot of great fan favorites that would still be much appreciated by today's crowd, and I think there would be more people happily buying the sets than there would be grumbling misers.