nemo

Banned Outlaws
  • Content count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nemo

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. nemo

    Friends "Controversy"

    I don’t see how statistically relevant the poll is (unless there’s some hidden way to exclude all responders who are not parents of girls). My feeling is that my opinion is probably irrelevant, but that of my six year old daughter probably is. She likes the colours, is disappointed by the simplicity of the sets (but she’s made age 12+ sets on her own so she may not be representative), is irritated by all the fiddly “silly” bits (bows, hearts etc), and really dislikes the figures. Why does she dislike the figures so much? Because “you can’t bend the legs separately”, “they won’t stick down when sitting” and “you can’t move the hands”. My feeling is that charging the same amount for the featureless 3183 Convertible (1 figure; no doors; ages 6-12) and 4431 Ambulance (3 figures; opening doors and roof; bicycle; medical equipment etc; ages 5-12) shows that TLG doesn’t just think girls are imbeciles, but their parents must be too. Do not buy these patronising, insulting and overpriced sets. Demand TLG diversifies its existing ranges. My daughter has two Friends figures and doesn’t want any more. In contrast she has about 100 minifigs. But in addition to more female minifigs in sets, TLG needs more female designers, that is quite clear.
  2. TL;DR: All the bricks, old and new, that aren’t in yet. There, that was easy!
  3. nemo

    2012 City sets

    That picture does show the design problem with the new brick pattern 2x1 – when staggered (normal building technique surely) the pattern doesn’t line up correctly, the vertical mortar lines clash. Look at the bridge supports in the original image. [Edit: Here’s a clearer image] I think there should have been three brick courses, mirrored on the other side, so that both staggered and parallel building would work correctly, bricks offset by tiles would still line up, and the mortar lines should go all the way around the bricks. As it is it’s a very poor design. I was hoping it was an early draft in LDD but no, there it is in the bridge.
  4. nemo

    10224 Town Hall

    You’re quite right, most remiss of me. I should also have mentioned her charming voice and engaging presentation manner. Better? (joke) Anyway... doesn’t this leave the recent 10230 Mini Modulars set somewhat lacking? Though I note that Lego describe that set as a representation of “the first 5 buildings in the Modular Building series” – so, here’s to Mini Modulars 2. Who’ll be first to make an 8×8 version?!
  5. nemo

    10224 Town Hall

    Half plus seven is all that matters. Half plus seven!
  6. nemo

    10224 Town Hall

    Is there an Astrid fan club? I had to watch the video again just to be sure but no, just Lego.
  7. 4 dix – Inn – 3 points 8 cava – Station – 2 points
  8. I couldn’t give a monkey’s what that says – it does not and can not circumvent US and EU law, and US and EU law specifically allow reverse-engineering for the purposes if inter-operability. If the LDD EULA said you could never drive your car more than 10kph do you REALLY think that would be legally binding just because you ran the program? Don’t be silly. The whole basis of “you agreed to this by doing that” is ridiculous. In particular, and I don’t think this is widely understood, you haven’t broken the terms of your licence agreement just because the licensor (TLG) says so. Absolutely not! Only a judge can interpret the licence and render a judgement, not the licensor. So the reality is the very worst that could happen is that TLG could decide to sue one of their customers for breach of the licence agreement and only through legal action force them to discontinue use of the software. This isn’t going to happen. However, if someone legally reverse-engineers a file format (say) and documents that here, it is possible that TLG might pressure the forum into removal of the information on copyright grounds. Rather than argue that tenuous point any forum (and most site hosts) would simply remove the data. There is precedent for entire websites being deleted by hosting companies on the most implausible copyright ownership claims – hosting companies don’t care. This is why Eurobricks must be so careful. But to return to the OP, I would encourage him to publish everything – code and documentation – on SourceForge, which is a much better place than this forum for such stuff.
  9. This is absolutely correct. It’s irritating that a number of us have had to do this yet have been discouraged from publishing the results. In truth there is some ambiguous language in the statutes which implies that one CAN reverse engineer but CANNOT document the results... but: I don’t think this stands scrutiny – “we can all look in the box but we can’t say what we saw” is just silly. It’s not an injunction, and even a signed NDA is irrelevant when all parties already know the information. There is so much precedent for the publication of previously-proprietary file formats. I really don’t believe for a moment that The Lego Group is going to sue anyone for documenting .lif or its contents. Having said that, Lego need the flexibility to make breaking changes to the file format without having to document them so we shouldn’t expect them to ‘open’ it. But I think we can stop the cloak-and-dagger and creeping in shadows. Excellent. That’s not something I’d looked at as I’m not familiar with 3D data formats. This is marvellous. Under US and UK law this is an interoperable program and you can do what you like, including publishing the source openly. Thank you for taking the time to do this. That’s marvellous. I sincerely hope it can run on the limited resource machines which LDD is less-than-happy about and I’m looking forward to getting hold of a copy! Skipping forward slightly – imagine a plugin that would allow .lxf files to be viewed and manipulated in 3D in the browser – there are a number of websites including this one that could benefit from such a thing! BTW, documenting the file formats is one thing. Appropriating Lego’s data contained within such file formats is quite another – that data (the .lif contents) certainly is subject to plain old copyright. You would require written permission to reproduce it. Converting it to another format is merely a ‘derived work’ and permission is still required. However, accessing the data in place (having installed LDD) and even modifying it are perfectly fine – just not distribution of it in whole or significant part. (And no, you can’t rip one brick out and say that’s “fair use”!)
  10. Well I’m highly unimpressed. I think it’s astonishing that no attempt has been made to solve the stupid user interface mistakes reported by prateek here and myself here which simply cannot be worked around. I called it a SCHOOLBOY ERROR last time, but its persistence is simply SHAMEFUL. I write that as a software engineer of 30 years experience. The brick range has been updated, and the application skinning tweaked to remove DbM, but no serious software engineering has occurred at all. This is a decision made by somebody at Lego or the software studio, and it can be summarised as “we can’t be bothered, buy a bigger monitor”. Consequently I’ll document brick errors, but I’m not going to report any further application bugs. There’s clearly no point.
  11. How nice, but at £1,500 a go I’d expect it to make my tea and darn my socks as well.
  12. nemo

    Review: 4435 Car & Caravan

    Considering how incredibly cheap the sticker sheets are it is disappointing that the number plates don’t fit with UK usage... but then am I alone in my disappointment that the instruction sheets always show the driver on the left – couldn’t a side panel show the right-hand-drive build variant? OK, so Legoland is ‘typical’ EU country – RHD, white plates front and rear, separate trailer registration, but US-style above-ground fire hydrants!
  13. Why produce an asymmetric brick (which begs for a mirror image version too). Instead just have the triangular part with a single stud which can fit between the existing parts (which are available in a number of lengths). I still think you shouldn’t be putting the “Lego” logo on these renderings.
  14. nemo

    MOC: Royal Liver Building

    You’ve got too many clock faces! There are four, not eight!
  15. Yes I was going to try Blender when I found a moment. Do try to persevere and see why it fails – is it when models have too many bricks, or certain brick designs? Being open source, there is a very good chance that any such Blender bug will be quickly fixed! This is just annoying.