LDD 4.3.5 bugs

[SalvoBrick]

I don't know if it's a bug of this version or some previous one:

Window's frame 4 x 5 x 1 is missing, but there is its glass...

[Banjo]

Some bugs from the previous versions and still in 4.3:

- airtanks 3838 do not allow connection of 30214 insectoid helmet to minifig's head due to some collision error. Such assembly takes place in almost all set from Space/Insectoids theme.

- it is still not possible to place two or more neck accessories on one minifig, for example 2526 epaulette and 2524 knapsack in Pirates sets.

- railway element 85976 cannot be connected from beneath; all other railway elements can, but they all miss below studs, at least they are not graphically visible. They look perfectly flat.

I noticed these last version (the "two neck accessories" thing is - as discussed - likely a design decision rather than a bug, though I'd love to see it "fixed" at some point).

The railway track issue (part 85976) was the most notable one for me, since it makes accurately building set 7065 ("Alien Mothership") impossible; bricks and plates won't attach to the underside of the 85976 track pieces.

[Flobnomdob]

Here's an obviously impossible connection it was easy to find:

Nothing more to say.

[Superkalle]

Here's an obviously impossible connection it was easy to find:

Nothing more to say.

It's a know limitation and you can find more of those examples. LDD does not test how a brick get to it's position, only if it will fit once there.

[Scorpion]

This is not a bug, but there are lots of duplicate bricks in LDD. (Examples: nose cone 1x1 - there are 3 of them; engine 3x3x6 - there are 2 of them; bottom 2x5x2 1/3 - there are 2 of them; plate 2x2 - there are 2 of them, and many, many more!) If the LDD team would be so kind as to remove the duplicates, I would be ever so grateful!

[Aanchir]

This is not a bug, but there are lots of duplicate bricks in LDD. (Examples: nose cone 1x1 - there are 3 of them; engine 3x3x6 - there are 2 of them; bottom 2x5x2 1/3 - there are 2 of them; plate 2x2 - there are 2 of them, and many, many more!) If the LDD team would be so kind as to remove the duplicates, I would be ever so grateful!

In most cases, those so-called "duplicates" are in fact unique versions of the parts, and I'd be happier if they were not removed. If you have a particular version you want to use, you can consult the LEGO Customer Service website's replacement parts database and look up the set that the version you want to use came in.

To clarify further, for the three cones there are three versions listed. The first is the original solid-colored version of the part, the second a transparent version of the part which I believe was introduced slightly later. The third is the most distinctive-- it is the version that replaced the solid-colored ones in 2008 and the transparent ones a year or so later. It has a small "rim" around the stud to keep it from forcing the walls of bricks apart like the older version could do.

The 2x2 plates are slightly less unique. The one with the smaller Design ID is the classic one, whereas the one with the larger Design ID is the one manufactured in China and used in sets like the 2011 Ninjago spinner sets. A lot of the earliest Chinese-made parts have unique Design IDs, although around the time of Minifigures Series 3 TLG started using their classic molds in the Chinese manufacturing plant if they didn't already have unique molds for those parts in service.

Still, I think it's worthwhile to keep the multiple variants. For people who don't differentiate between the versions, they do no harm, whereas for the people who do they provide a benefit to the accuracy of LEGO models.

[iceleftd]

This is not a bug, but there are lots of duplicate bricks in LDD. (Examples: nose cone 1x1 - there are 3 of them; engine 3x3x6 - there are 2 of them; bottom 2x5x2 1/3 - there are 2 of them; plate 2x2 - there are 2 of them, and many, many more!) If the LDD team would be so kind as to remove the duplicates, I would be ever so grateful!

That's an interesting point. Take the 2x2 plates, for example. There are two, one for #3022 and one for #94148 which is a newer number from some of the Ninjago sets. I have problems finding odd parts in LDD using the palette and generally look them up by number. I'd hate for them to drop the alternate numbers or the variations (for bricks that have changed slightly over time).

That being said, I'm sure they could come up with a solution for true duplicate numbers that allows you to search on both numbers, see both numbers when you click on the brick, but only have one entry in the palette.

Oh, and it would be nice to have the number appear along with the name in the tool-tip box when you hover over a part in the palette (at least in Extended mode).

[hrontos]

That's an interesting point. Take the 2x2 plates, for example. There are two, one for #3022 and one for #94148 which is a newer number from some of the Ninjago sets. I have problems finding odd parts in LDD using the palette and generally look them up by number. I'd hate for them to drop the alternate numbers or the variations (for bricks that have changed slightly over time).

That being said, I'm sure they could come up with a solution for true duplicate numbers that allows you to search on both numbers, see both numbers when you click on the brick, but only have one entry in the palette.

Oh, and it would be nice to have the number appear along with the name in the tool-tip box when you hover over a part in the palette (at least in Extended mode).

Concerning tooltips: simply enable them in your Preferences in the Edit menu.

Concerning the duplicates: they are duplicate only in LDD. Their real appearance or physical properties (like clutch power) are different, so why to treat them as same? When you are searching, because you are building according to building instructions it will find you the right brick when you type the correct design ID into search box. And correct design ID can be found using LEGO website.

[Superkalle]

This thing with duplicate parts is an interesting question.

In LDD Manager, I have had problems because of this, since different LDD parts variants need to be mapped to different BrickLink ones.

Sometimes, there are more variants in LDD then in BrickLink (like the 2x2 plate). Sometimes it's the other way around (for example BL do not distinguish between molds/DesignIDs for the transparent vs. solid 1x1 cone.)

For many LDD users, I think the main concern is that it's confusing and annoying, but like Aanchir says, it has no practical implications. And in some cases it's important to have two versions because BrickLink distinguish between them, and you need to specify right in LDD to get the right one at BrickLink.

However, I agree that there are some parts that can actually be removed in LDD even for advanced users, because not even LEGO themeselves treat them differently. Once again, the 2x2 plate is an example. If you order the 2x2 from LEGO, you actually use the old DesignID (3022).

So, why do they even put out new DesignID's at LEGO. The general rule is that a new DesignID is assigned when a physcial change has been made to the design of the part and a new mold needs to be made. This can even be minute differences that users won't even notice (like a different shape reinforcement bar on the brick underside).

To make it complicated, sometimes LEGO keeps the same DesignID even though there is actually a new physical design. This is off course not good, because it means that BrickLink will list two parts, where LDD only has one. There are a couple of examples, like the "2578 shield box".

EDIT: examples of bricks that can be removed in LDD:

94148 2x2 plate

6188 1x1 Nose Cone TR.

594891x2 tile engraved

[iceleftd]

Concerning tooltips: simply enable them in your Preferences in the Edit menu.

Concerning the duplicates: they are duplicate only in LDD. Their real appearance or physical properties (like clutch power) are different, so why to treat them as same? When you are searching, because you are building according to building instructions it will find you the right brick when you type the correct design ID into search box. And correct design ID can be found using LEGO website.

Yes, tooltips are there but my point is they don't show the part *number*.

Kalle addressed your comment on the issues of molds/part numbers. I don't build from "building instructions" much and I often look up a part I want in the BrickLink catalog or use the mold number on an actual part. I can usually figure out duplicate/similar part number issues on BrickLink but having some knowledge of that in LDD would be a bonus.

[hrontos]

Kalle addressed your comment on the issues of molds/part numbers. I don't build from "building instructions" much and I often look up a part I want in the BrickLink catalog or use the mold number on an actual part. I can usually figure out duplicate/similar part number issues on BrickLink but having some knowledge of that in LDD would be a bonus.

This part number to design ID "conversion" can be done using LEGO website. The missing parts service lets you specify part number and shows you design ID and color. It's a pitty LDD not longer contains that useless web browser pane - it could be used to display the missing parts service information directly in LDD so search would be without switching to browser application.

The part numbers are visible in only LDD mode. LDD palette contains for each design/color combination also the part number.

In extended mode part numbers can be also added, but such database would be quite big, since each design ID in different colors has different part number. LDD does not contain all these combinations. Of course, it would be great to have it there. I am not sure they will add that database to LDD. It can be built manually, but it is a huge job. I am not sure if LDD Manager has also LEGO part numbers or only BrickLink part numbers.

[Superkalle]

It's a pitty LDD not longer contains that useless web browser pane

That was actually kind of funny

Anway, just so we are all talking about the same things

DesignID - same as mold design, i.e. a particular shape of a brick (called ItemID in BL)

MaterialID - color

ElementID - a certain DesignID and MaterialID combination. (e.g. 5183315). BL calls these "Part Color Codes"

Part number is not a good term to use, since in many industries, a part number is what LEGO calls ElementID, but AFOLs tend to use it to mean DesignID. (yeah, you might have to read that sentence twice )

So, DesignID's are always shown in LDD. These map to about 80% with BL counterparts. The rest are BL bricks like "x874".

ElementID are not shown except for in LDD mode (like Hrontos says).

Last year I ran some comparison test between the ElementID's in LDD vs. BL, and found that about 60% differ. LDD seems to use ID*s that are not known (for the public). In LDD Manager I use BL ID's, because they are based on data at the back of instruction guides, and therefore use the DesignID's that can be used when ordering bricks from LEGO (which is basically the only time you have any use of them). The BL Element ID's are correct to about 98%. I've seen this when ordering bricks for LUGBulk.

So to conclude, LDD ElementID's I don't know where they come from and how useful they are. The BL ones I know are correct to about 98%. So LDD Manager uses BL ID's.

[kamos]

Weren't there the 3x3 plate? Today, my brick database got updated into 835.3 and I can't find it. Did they removed it? (only curious)

[Aanchir]

However, I agree that there are some parts that can actually be removed in LDD even for advanced users, because not even LEGO themeselves treat them differently. Once again, the 2x2 plate is an example. If you order the 2x2 from LEGO, you actually use the old DesignID (3022).

I wouldn't be so sure about this. In the case of the 2x2 plate you may be correct, but in the case of other similar parts that vary by where they are produced, LEGO Customer Service seems to offer both. Compare this part from 2172 Nya (2011 set, Chinese-made brick) and this one from 9561 Kai ZX (2012 set, non-Chinese-made brick). No idea if TLG will actually offer both of these bricks through Customer Service, but they're both listed if you fill in those sets' item numbers on the Customer Service website replacement parts form.

Whether a Design ID is old or new depends on when a part was introduced, not whether it is current, and thus in some cases both versions of a part can be currently in production.

It should be noted that the basic LDD mode seems designed to reduce confusion in the case of seemingly-identical bricks. I can't say I totally approve of how it does this, in that it uses the oldest Design ID for the 1x1 cones rather than the newest, but it still does try to eliminate redundancy and not confuse less experienced users.

That was actually kind of funny

Anway, just so we are all talking about the same things

DesignID - same as mold design, i.e. a particular shape of a brick (called ItemID in BL)

MaterialID - color

ElementID - a certain DesignID and MaterialID combination. (e.g. 5183315). BL calls these "Part Color Codes"

Part number is not a good term to use, since in many industries, a part number is what LEGO calls ElementID, but AFOLs tend to use it to mean DesignID. (yeah, you might have to read that sentence twice )

So, DesignID's are always shown in LDD. These map to about 80% with BL counterparts. The rest are BL bricks like "x874".

ElementID are not shown except for in LDD mode (like Hrontos says).

Last year I ran some comparison test between the ElementID's in LDD vs. BL, and found that about 60% differ. LDD seems to use ID*s that are not known (for the public). In LDD Manager I use BL ID's, because they are based on data at the back of instruction guides, and therefore use the DesignID's that can be used when ordering bricks from LEGO (which is basically the only time you have any use of them). The BL Element ID's are correct to about 98%. I've seen this when ordering bricks for LUGBulk.

So to conclude, LDD ElementID's I don't know where they come from and how useful they are. The BL ones I know are correct to about 98%. So LDD Manager uses BL ID's.

It should be noted that all of the Element IDs in LDD should be correct from a production-end standpoint. One reason Bricklink Part Color Codes might not be the same is that sometimes the same part-color combination can have more than one Element ID. I do not know exactly why this is, though it may have to do with instances where parts are taken out of production and later put back into production. The oldest Element IDs I know of (some of which are still in use today, like the 1x2 brick from Kai ZX above) are just the Design ID with the Material ID tacked onto the end.

It should also of course be remembered that Bricklink has a tendency to conflate certain part molds and colors that Bricklink users can't differentiate between. Thus Bricklink part color codes can often designate multiple part-color combinations and thus multiple true Element IDs. This should not be a problem too often in LDD basic mode since that mode's parts library is limited to current colors in most respects, and there are very few extremely obscure or confusing colors these days. But, for instance, Silver Metallic parts could easily have totally different Element IDs than the Part Color Codes listed on Bricklink because Bricklink's vague "Flat Silver" designation can include any number of silver colors that happen to look roughly similar, whereas Silver Metallic is a very specific color introduced in late 2010/early 2011.

[Superkalle]

I've attached a list with seemingly identical bricks I've been compiling over the years.

Which of these do you guys think are candidates for removal?

IdenticalElements6.lxf

[Aanchir]

I've attached a list with seemingly identical bricks I've been compiling over the years.

Which of these do you guys think are candidates for removal?

• The three flags all have different styles of clip (look closely). Not a functional difference but definitely an aesthetic one, as with any other clip pieces.
  
• The curved and straight railroad tracks are obviously very visibly different, but the real difference is both functional and aesthetic. The very badly rendered 74746 and 74747 are supposed to be 9V tracks, while 53400 and 53401 are Power Functions rails, which lack any electrical components.
  
• The two door frames are RADICALLY different in real life (one allows a door or window to attach on both sides, while one allows a door or window to be attached only on one side). A major functional difference.
  
• The two Exo-Force robot arms have visible differences in the upper arm supports (one has thicker supports, likewise visible on the real-life parts). Again, an aesthetic difference, not a functional one.
  
• The two 4x4 wedge slopes are different in that one has slots underneath to allow studs underneath the angled portion while the other does not. Functional and aesthetic difference.
  
• The two ball caps have easily visible differences in real life. 86035 should have a curved bill. Neither should be removed, but 86035 definitely needs to be rendered better. An aesthetic difference, but an important one.
  
• Of the two guns/nozzles: 58367 has more detail along the barrel, but this makes it difficult to clip things to the barrel. It is also a softer material than the simpler 60849. Functional and aesthetic difference.
  
• The two long wigs have differences in level of detail, but part of this is just due to the rendering, since 4530 should have deeper grooves and a visible anti-stud. I have never seen the newer 96859 in real life so can't judge whether the two are identical or near-identical in real life.
  
• The clips 6019 and 61252 have obvious aesthetic differences in real life. 61252 should have an O-shaped clip rather than a U-shaped clip, at least in its modern incarnation.
  
• I've already mentioned the 2x2 plates. One is Chinese-made, one is made in other factories around the world. I do not know if there are any functional differences.
  
• The two pairs of handcuffs have different thicknesses.
  
• The difference between the engraved tile and the regular 1x2 tile is expressed in the name. One is engraved and one is not. However, since the engraving varies from brick to brick (these are the same design ID as the unique number-engraved tiles from the first edition of the Santa Fe Super Chief) and varies depending on the decoration (none of which are available), the engraved version is probably useless on LDD.
  
• I have no idea if there is any difference in shape between the transparent and non-transparent versions of the 1x1 cone. It might involve mold differences to account for the different material (polycarbonate for transparent, ABS for solid-colored). But whether these differences have any impact on the shape of the final brick is unknown to me.
  
• 30144 lacks supports between the walls and the center tubes, while 97492 has them. Otherwise they seem identical. I do not know if this is a rendering difference or an actual difference, but I will hazard a guess that 97492 is a Chinese-made variant and both are still in production.
  
• The same applies for 3007 versus 93888.
  
• No idea what differences might exist between the two lightsaber hilts.
  
• All the arch variants are different in the thickness of their outer walls on the curved portion. Presumably this allows studs to attach to the inside of the curve on some and not the other.
  
• 6087 and 76766 seem to have different supports inside the column portion. Not sure if this is IRL or digital-only. I do know that 76766 is the more current one, unless it has been replaced since I last checked.
  
• 48183 and 90194 have visibly different undersides-- 90194 has additional supports on the center row of anti-studs.
  
• 88323 and 57518 are different in that the tracks of 88323 are beveled. I also believe that in real life there is a difference between how large a loop they make when the textured sides are facing in/the toothed sides are facing out. But I may be mistaken in that those two real-life variants may share a design ID, whereas these may be merely cosmetic variants.
  
• The two broadswords have the same Design ID, so this is the only true duplicate here. The problem is not that they are near-identical parts, but rather that they are the same part but for some reason listed twice in the parts tray.
  
• The panel part 60581 is a good example of an ABS-specific part (in that a different mold would have been used for transparent polycarbonate parts, at least when this mold was introduced). It has sharp corners. The newer variant 87543 has blunted corners.
  
• The panel part 74968, in contrast, is polycarbonate-specific. The newer variant has no such specification. Here you can see that the LDD team does not consider it important to keep two variants that only vary by material. As such the transparent 1x1 cone listed earlier can probably be removed.
  
• 10247 has a support that goes all the way across the bottom. The support for the older 2444 is broken in the center. Thus the newer variant 10247 is sturdier, but the older variant theoretically allows Technic elements to recede further in real life.
  
• 6191 has asymmetrical supports on the underside. The newer 10314 has symmetrical supports. This means that contrary to what LDD's connection points tell us, 6191 should not allow plates to be attached by half-stud increments, while the newer one should.
  
• No idea if there is a difference between the Hero Factory spike elements. It may just be a material difference, in which case one could be removed.
  
• The two flex cables 61356 and 76275 seem to vary only by color/material. Flex cables and tubes in general tend to specify color with their Design ID as well as their Material and Element IDs, and I don't know the reason for certain. One could probably be removed.
  
• The tires 3139 and 59895 vary in texture in real life, but this is not expressed in the LDD renders. 3139 should have ring-shaped ridges around the side surfaces.
  
• Any Hero Factory fan can tell you in a heartbeat that 60176 and 93571. 60176 was introduced in 2008 to fix a problem with breaking joints, but in fact it remained extremely brittle. Three whole years later, 93571 finally fixed the problem of breaking joints which had plagued BIONICLE sets since at least 2007.
  
• 61054 and 89651 have differences in the axle holes (note that one side of each is open) and in the pin holes (one side has the indentations for the ridges of two pins continuous with one another). There is also a difference in the joint itself though I don't know if one is more brittle or has more friction than the other.
  
• 6016 and the newer 62113 are different in shape. Look at the indentations-- the newer one has a smooth edge across the entire rail, with indentations between the struts, while the older ones had larger indentations with flat rings around them, aligned on top of the outermost struts. I do not know if the difference is functional as well.

In general, I feel that if anything this list demonstrates exactly why duplicate parts should be given the benefit of the doubt. Often the differences are subtle, subtler even than LDD may be aware of. But chances are some AFOL might notice the difference of the two variants one day. They may even find a use for them (which may or may not involve illegal connections). Personally I think that we might as well keep these duplicate parts in LDD, though they may require re-rendering to make the differences more apparent in some cases. That way people who build official sets can always count on the correct variant being available.

[hrontos]

Aanchir, you have my respect and admiration. It's really impressive to read some of your comments. Just like when a man shows an ant or fly to biologist and he will tell him everything about that particular kind of an ant. We all have it like a hobby, but it looks like you have it as a hobby on a completely different level. Or did you graduated on LEGO?

I have been already impressed by the work Superkalle invested into the LDD Manager to build such database and now when I read some of these comments, I am impressed again.

[Superkalle]

Looking at visual apperance in LDD as critiera is certainly tricky since the Level of Detail in LDD isn't the best, and has varied over the years (more recent bricks seem better). So any judgement should probably be made only on physical bricks.

Having said that, I propose the following questions as criteria:

1) Is there a difference in usability between the bricks? This would include even the most minute details like the stud cut-outs in the slope/roof bricks and the number of anti-studs on the underside of the 6x6 tile. If there is a difference - both should be kept.

2) Does the community distinguish between the variants, i.e. does sellers on BrickLink separate between them. If so, both should be kept in LDD, even though they look identical (on the LOD level that LDD is). Example, the small tires 59895 and 3139.

3) Is a brick merely a DesignID replacement at TLG? I.e. they basically just assign a new DesignID to an existing brick and it's completely impossible to spot any difference. Then one could go.

Anyway, based on your discussion on the bricks above Aanchir, which are possible to remove from LDD. Can you compile them into a short list?

[kangmingjie]

Minifig Wig No. 14 (Elf ears with hair) does not let you paint the ears a different color.

Sebulba body piece can not be fully painted.

Great update! Will there be any Lord of the Rings pieces added soon?

Edited September 22, 2012 by kangmingjie

[Banjo]

Not a "bug", but didn't know where else to post this... part 52107 isn't available in "standard" mode in 'medium stone grey', but it *should* be (I own a dozen of them personally, from 3866 Star Wars Battle of Hoth boardgame).

Can definitely reconfirm the 85976 bug too; nowhere to attach pieces to the track undersides!

[Superkalle]

Sebulba body piece can not be fully painted.

How do you mean not fully painted? This is what I got when I tried.

[Aanchir]

Looking at visual apperance in LDD as critiera is certainly tricky since the Level of Detail in LDD isn't the best, and has varied over the years (more recent bricks seem better). So any judgement should probably be made only on physical bricks.

Having said that, I propose the following questions as criteria:

1) Is there a difference in usability between the bricks? This would include even the most minute details like the stud cut-outs in the slope/roof bricks and the number of anti-studs on the underside of the 6x6 tile. If there is a difference - both should be kept.

2) Does the community distinguish between the variants, i.e. does sellers on BrickLink separate between them. If so, both should be kept in LDD, even though they look identical (on the LOD level that LDD is). Example, the small tires 59895 and 3139.

3) Is a brick merely a DesignID replacement at TLG? I.e. they basically just assign a new DesignID to an existing brick and it's completely impossible to spot any difference. Then one could go.

Anyway, based on your discussion on the bricks above Aanchir, which are possible to remove from LDD. Can you compile them into a short list?

I'd say if any, 6188 NOSE CONE SMALL 1X1 - TR should be one of the first to go, since the LDD team has really never put forth an effort to differentiate between material-only variants, nor has Bricklink, and the fact that any part on LDD can exist in any color makes material distinctions like this fairly redundant. In the same vein, 76275 should probably be the next to go-- again I don't know of any distinctions besides material/color.

59489 is fairly unique compared to the standard 1x2 slope, but chances are it can be removed since the feature that makes it unique-- the custom engraving-- is impossible to replicate on LDD.

Needless to say, the duplicate broadsword (99232) can be removed from the parts tray, though the brick itself should remain on LDD since it is the only variant available.

I'm hesitant about dismissing the China variants, since there might be some differences in detail, but the differences are probably not functional in any regard, at least on LDD (like material differences, the LDD team has shown no inclination to include all China variants or even the most distinctive to AFOLs, like minifigure parts). Thus, 94148, 97492, and 93888 can potentially be removed.

I am reluctant to see any of the others removed, though many could afford to have their renders improved, such as the 9V train tracks.

Not a "bug", but didn't know where else to post this... part 52107 isn't available in "standard" mode in 'medium stone grey', but it *should* be (I own a dozen of them personally, from 3866 Star Wars Battle of Hoth boardgame).

Can definitely reconfirm the 85976 bug too; nowhere to attach pieces to the track undersides!

This is probably because the default palette of LDD mode hasn't been updated since its release, and was missing a number of parts new to this year at the time of its release. As a Hero Factory fan this couldn't be more obvious to me-- some of the parts from this year which are available on LDD Extended mode do not appear in any colors in the basic LDD mode.

[Banjo]

This is probably because the default palette of LDD mode hasn't been updated since its release, and was missing a number of parts new to this year at the time of its release. As a Hero Factory fan this couldn't be more obvious to me-- some of the parts from this year which are available on LDD Extended mode do not appear in any colors in the basic LDD mode.

Thanks for the info! I'll admit that I'd much rather see Extended-only parts (like "Alien Mask" and the LED light brick) appear in regular LDD mode than worry about limited LDD-mode colours... but like you said, when you use certain themes or pieces a lot, you really "notice" missing colours (e.g. for me, that four-knob brick from Battle of Hoth, or something like the Spacegun not being available in black, because I'm a huge fan of the Galactic Patrol Minifig).

[AndyC]

Thanks for the info! I'll admit that I'd much rather see Extended-only parts (like "Alien Mask" and the LED light brick) appear in regular LDD mode than worry about limited LDD-mode colours... but like you said, when you use certain themes or pieces a lot, you really "notice" missing colours (e.g. for me, that four-knob brick from Battle of Hoth, or something like the Spacegun not being available in black, because I'm a huge fan of the Galactic Patrol Minifig).

It's worth noting (because many people overlook it) that you can always switch temporarily to Extended Mode using the View -> New Themes menu option, add/paint any parts you need, and then switch back to the simplified interface if you prefer it.

[Superkalle]

Made a considerably trimmed down LXF of potential remove items. (and added Qui gons hair)

IdenticalElements7.lxf

Also revised my proposed criteria for judging potential bricks to remove to simply be:

Is the bricks fully interchangeable in respect to usage/function as well as visual appearance (looking at a physical brick) when used/applied?