Vee

A question that has been bugging me. It is about the bricks with masonry profile. Usually when we build anything, it is wise to "cross" bricks, I mean, you don't lay bricks on top of others that are the same size, in the exact same position. I don't know the English word for this so I am calling it "crossing". Even with bricks of different sizes, you avoid that a brick on top of another brick have any of its ends ending on top of the end of the brick below. That will ensure you have an overall strong connection for whatever you are building. But then comes the masonry profiled bricks. They are always 1x2 so there are only two ways to lay one atop the other: either crossing them or not. If you cross them, that is the ideal thing to do, the pattern of the profile is wrong. If you lay one atop the other without crossing, that is the wrong thing to do, the pattern created by them is just perfect. So, what am I supposed to do if I wanted to build a big wall only with these bricks?

Yes, that is Lego trademark, you have to always be guessing... And ironically their name, Lego, means "play well" ...

I haven't read the posts here but based on what the thread title says, I would argue that instead of asking Lego to create new parts and/with new colors they should instead create existing parts with existing colors. I mean, there are so many existing parts that do not exist in already existing colors that I wonder why create new parts with new colors. It is like those applications full of bugs where the developer instead of fixing current bugs keep adding more features to the buggy application.

You may be right, I may be right, partially, entirely, we will never know. I can only guess.

There is no such thing as "free". You paid for them and you didn't know.

It is impossible to prove anything but they can always do that. I think Cuusoo is good for Lego more than for the thousands of dreamers dreaming to have their design produced. I think they changed the rules because Minecraft was a huge success and they found themselves with legal problems ($$$$) with whoever submitted the Minecraft idea and was granted production. They don't want to share any profit if they can avoid it. Business as usual.

http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=41042-1 Is it ever going to be sold in the US?

Well, the solution was to follow jamesn's advice and go for a 4 stud (like the one I already had done but with the transparent plates at the back). Here it it, I think it is nicer than the one I had done before. A little out of proportions and big but, well, it is Lego world. Here, the two compared.

I understand now what you mean. Such swap makes the 1x3 tile to collide badly with the pole and yet, even if I had no pole, it is not aligned to the right.

Sorry, I don't follow you. The 1x3 tile is a little longer than the rest but if I could have it centered along with the top and bottom bricks, it could look so so,but the grooves in the 1x3 tile do not allow it. The tile, as it is, fits either too much to the right or too much to the left (where it then collides with the pole). A solution would be to remove the groove (cut it out), make it like the 1x2 tiles without groove. And also, to cut the 1x3 tile shorter half a plate.

I tried that (in real life) and the grasp to the tile is weak, not enough attrition, the tile is too smooth at the top, it slides easily.

Yes. nice flag. I was trying to create a flag using the same "principles" but for Denmark and almost did it! The 1x3 tile is a little longer than needed and does not fit into the brick with one stud in the center position. Maybe if I remove the groove, but still it is bigger than I wanted it. Any ideas on a nice Denmark flag? I had previously created the one below, it uses some transparent 1x2's and 1x1's in the back.

Since I have just bought "La Tour Eiffel" and the Mars Rover, there are only three sets that I will buy - eventually - i.e., I don't know when it will happen (certainly before they are retired or I won't buy at all): - 10224 Town Hall - 10232 Palace Cinema - 10243 Parisian Restaurant Town Hall will be the first because it it the oldest. And there is that house from the Simpson's House set (yet to be released). I don't care about the horrible minifigures, I never watched Simpsons anyway, but the house looks worthy.

There was a spam message above mine but fortunately the admins were quick to remove it.

Cool, CopMike, although I have not yet figured it out ... I was thinking about this one here: http://prntscr.com/2hev8r (front) http://prntscr.com/2hevek (back) Ok, I have it figured out now... slow thinking here... :-) Very nice.

That's why I decided to add some color to my Pisa Tower... :laugh: Although I wanted the green grabbing the pole instead of the red... but, no existence of such part. But I am working on a better rendition of the Italian flag... waiting for the parts... :-)

Thank you for the nice explanation about the "hacks" you can do to the LXF files. I know XML files, I am a hobbyist programmer, but had no idea you could edit an LXF file like that. One question: why distribute this LXFML file if it is already inside the LXF file?

I don't think so. I have an LXF file with 20k+ pieces that is a layout of modular buildings (soon to have PR added to it) and LDD shows its thumbnail just fine. LDD takes a few seconds to show the thumbnail though but never shows an error like that. I clicked the LXF link. I don't even know what an LXFML file is.

I don't see this thread as a race with winners as the ones that "arrive" first. You do your build, you submit, period, it doesn't matter if someone else did it first. Anyway, the reason for my post is to ask why LDD does not show the thumbnail as usual for pbat's LXF Parisian Restaurant file, as show here: http://prntscr.com/2h92z5 Notice that the icon is a blurred brick with a red exclamation mark. Weird. The file opens fine though. Any explanation?

But you can buy 1x1 and 1x2 dark red new plates for around 5 cents a piece in large quantities in Bricklink, why pay more per piece in the set and get a lot of unwanted other pieces with them?

Give me a $200 set with 2000 identical 2x4's and I will be happy to assemble it. Give me a $250 set with 2000 identical 1x1 plates and tiles and I will throw it away. You know, Architecture sets are like that, more expensive than usual and with much more small parts than usual.

I don't care about Simpsons, never watched it on TV, never read about them, but I like houses and this house is very nice, big and nice.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I live in the US, I was talking about US$. Yes, I paid 120, but 120 US dollars, this is the retail price here. You can find it NIB in much better prices though, just like in UK.

There is a need to draw a line and I must not cross that line. There are several sets that I would be happy to have, even if assembling them would have its share of boredness (does this word exist?), but I cannot buy them all, I need to choose "some". I could buy the Tower Bridge, but I won't. I need to give good examples to my daughters, not spend money just because I can on something that ultimately is highly superfluous. They watch me, they learn from me, etc. etc. Doesn't this technique scratch/damage the side/corner of the tiles?