anothergol

The perfect example of a part that was commonly used, but retired with no substitute. I know those fingers were breaking a bit too easily but.. there is still no replacement for a low-profile hinge today.

That's what I believe, yes. I'd be Lego, I'd think "too fragile, too many retired parts, can we redo it? Yes but then it won't look as good. Does it matter for this build? Yes/no". Not for this specific MOC though, since they were already working on one, and that was probably the main reason. Can't imagine them releasing 2 brick-built T-Rex within the same 2 years. Or I'd release the "ugly" one first. (it's not really that ugly, it's just that we have something much better to compare it to) It would have certainly disappointed me, because that T-Rex is the best you can do with bricks. Some of the ideas are really amateurish, so of course Lego can improve them (even though they managed to turn a not-so-good MOC [DeLorean] even worse). But here, we've seen the best a MOC can do, it just can't compare to the best a set can do, following Lego's rules. By looking at the MOC, I'm sure it would stand on its feet (it's not that big), I'm also sure you'd knock off some parts by handling it. It wouldn't matter to me because it's a pure display model, and I wish Lego had a category in which it didn't matter either. If Lego had one, it should be Ideas. A place showing the best that can be done with parts & more rigid rules (yes even if that means bringing back retired parts - Lego has done that in the past).

Depends. The 5x5 dish has the perfect size for the one on Endor. On Hoth they had larger dishes, but also a slightly different shape. Depends what you're looking for. Yeah the Scala dishes are now rare in LBG (I've too stocked a couple, pretty useful part), but I've seen people use the DBG ones (ironically from Lego's own AT-ST, while they should have been LBG there). The *shape* of the Scala dish is in no way accurate, but until we get a proper 5x5 dish, it's still the best option. And the 4x4 dish isn't an option because that old thing isn't even hollow. And no, the new 4x4 round tile is pretty much a minifig display stand and can't be attached to the old roof, but I actually prefer the turntable as a hatch, on the old one. If you want he most accurate version, you may just update the legs, even though for the thighs I favored cool shapes over of accuracy. And also the feet are too long, but it's either the "roundness" feature, or the correct size but blocky feet.

I live in Belgium, and I'd say that this country isn't a real one but 2 different countries stuck together, one part that is a twin sister of the Nederlands, the other that is a twin sister of France. Lots of shops in Belgium as well, for a small country, but it looks like the majority are in the Dutch part. And that part happens to be (by far) the wealthiest. Little unemployment in that part, massive unemployment in my part. Maybe that's related? But it's strange considering: -I would more imagine BL stores in poor regions/countries, considering how little a BL shop must bring (well I may be wrong, but it looks more like a hobby/side job to me) -most importantly, shipping from the Nederlands costs a lot, especially over 50 or 100g. More expensinve than from the neighbor countries I have too little experience buying sets on BL, but if you're selling parts, as long as they're new, you're good to go. Just pack transparent parts individually, that's all a buyer asks. Used parts, that's another story..

While I use constraction parts, I don't much like it for 2 reasons: -constraction sets are pure toys because they feel very light, are generally in what I consider ugly colors (the fake stripey metallic ones), and were generally in designs that only appeal to kids (of the 2000's), not the adult I already was. -as a MOCer I like how polished Lego parts generally are, but constraction parts, just like Technic panels, generally expose ugly molding marks in plain sight, ruining the parts for me. They're also not in the same plastics, they're often too bendy, and & don't age the same. They're not even parts that have value in Bricklink for me, because they're generally those that you get with toothmarks and dirt/poop inside, no chance for these to come from adult collections. So, unlike many, I don't hate constraction because it feels like cheating, on the contrary I like big interesting parts. Like, the shoulder in the new Reinhardt set, because the part is clean & looks like other Lego parts. Plus I'm a big fan of ball joints in all sizes, but I don't much like when they're use as normal attachments, instead of pins.

Wrong guess, but I actually prefer your version. Other than that, I love it (but I love all Brickheadz). The only thing that bugs me is that they used the lipstick once again as a bar 2L, instea of just releasing what would be their easiest mold, an actual bar 2L. It not only doesn't make sense to dual-mold something they now often use as a bar 2L, but on top of it there's hardly any friction on the lipstick part, thus the flame part doesn't even hold well. And for a reason I don't understand, the last shot in the manual shows the statue with the flame removed. Is that an easter egg? All I could find is that the current flame isn't the original one but a replica. Other than that, where/when has she been seen without her torch? Or perhaps the whole joke is that she hides her lipstick inside the torch? Hum.

Thanks! I think getting rid of those would require a major redesign & to use bricks, but these would have drawbacks as well. Next year maybe :)

I don't even understand the controversy about the T.Rex because.. that's not even an idea, it's "just" a T.Rex. It's not even linked to Jurassic Park, it's a T.Rex, a dinosaur that sells by itself as a toy, that has always had - kids love dinosaurs. That's why I have a problem with "Lego Ideas": for many it really is about ideas. And they may be right, as Lego doesn't respect the original designs & redoes them (often for the better, but not always). So even if the T.Rex had been accepted, there's the possibility that it would have ended up like in the Jurassic Park set anyway. But to me, the build is the most important. The Ideas one is a much better looking build. It looks kinda fragile, it looks like Lego would have to redo it, and that's the problem. I would pay for that T.Rex as shown, not just "a T.Rex". And Lego's one doesn't even look bad.. it's just that the other one looks like a piece of art. I seriously hope that the Ideas one is gonna end up being produced by the chinese, because that may be the only hope we have, just like for other MOCs that are either too fragile/not "properly built" or are simply against Lego's rules because of their theme. But again, to me Lego Ideas is hardly about ideas. Aside from Jason Allemann, no one has ideas there (even though even Jason's entries are Lego versions of popular mechanisms, at least they're done creatively). <insert your favorite show>+Lego isn't an idea, it's something a bot could do. Lego didn't need an Ideas T.Rex project to gauge the appeal for a Lego T.Rex, it's a T.Rex, kids love them! To me it's all about the builds, or it *should be*.

Good old LDD still handles thousands of parts a lot better than Studio. Move a large assembly in Studio with part-snapping on, and it becomes unusable, while still smooth in the LDD.

I'm still working in the LDD, Studio isn't "ready" yet (not before they copy LDD's right-click view-centering, and lower the speed of camera movement.. and implement usable hose-bending.. and fix the bugs). But it's clear by now that Lego has abandoned the LDD, and I have to provide files with the right parts, not placeholders. I've seen too many of the 2.5 version built with the 2 tan 1x1 tiles at the top, while (as stated in the manual) they were just placeholders for 2x2 triangle tiles not available in the LDD. Studio is still a great tool to polish LDD-made stuff. Also it allows for professional instructions. Painful to do, but really pro. Not that anything here is "pro" (I've sold 120, & my other MOCs sold as low as 1 or 2), the only pros using Studio are chinese clone-makers.

Mmh, you may even only update parts of them. While I like the new flat roof, if still keep the old roof as an option, so if you often remove the roof, you're better with the one in 2.5. If not, it's an easy change that doesn't involve too many parts. The torso has only changed in look, in the back, not really critical. The legs & feet changed a lot, IMHO they look a lot better, not based on round axles anymore. But the strenght (brick+bar built, the lower legs don't bend like Technic but squeak like System) is still experimental, so you may wait a bit. In any case there are new 2019 parts that improve the model & are easy swaps.

Another year, another version. Flattened the roof, used recent parts in places, redesigned torso, redesigned the legs again. Better, slicker & more fragile as usual. I've updated the Rebrickable project, 2.5 files still included as legacy, but version 3 now has proper instructions (took ages to do). While I still work mainly in the LDD, I had to switch to Studio for the manual, as the LDD now lacks too many parts. https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-14608

I just placed an order, and I was surprised that my B&P item that I had started 2 days ago was still in my cart, still editable. ..so I edited it, and even though I shop in (the french part of) Belgium, B&P was displaying in dutch, and B&P then went to the english version of the belgian Lego shop, well, it still all worked smoothly, despite the perfect recipe for troubles. I'm not denying problems, as I've been reporting them for years, but at this moment B&P is working way better than it ever did, for me. And yes I've already been told to clear cookies & all, that's only a fix when the Lego shop is stuck in a loop trying to convert carts from a country to another. And I still believe the whole problem lies in that cart conversion thing.

52494, a robot head from some Friends set But again, it's 1.2eur for a part that's purely decorative while it could have been very useful. It's like the one who designed this part never heard of the binocular part. ah, Lego.. Is it hips that are cheap, or legs that cost an arm (which they don't sell) and a leg? It reminds me of Bricklink where used parts are quite often, in the same shop, more expensive than new ones.

I (& others) have been reporting problems with B&P so many times in the last years.. yet I did a quick try, and after confirming the order at B&P, the Lego shop page loaded up with an "unexpected error", but then reloaded itself and the order was there, still editable. So, ironically looking less brocken than usual here.

I think that "in warehouse" means that the parts are available in the warehouse(s), not that your order is complete

For those who had planned to get this (quite expensive for what it is) part thinking it's a nice new way to connect bars binocular-style, don't bother, it's just decorative (I would have known if I had looked more carefully). A missed opportunity IMHO.

Yes I own it, that's the one I inspected until I get the LBG ones. I thought it was from a blind bag because of the stand (ah, that's his "vehicle"? I guess it makes sense in the movie which I haven't seen)

Ah, I too have received parts by mistake, but only one lot, it was quite a lot of large trans blue windows for which I had no use for :( On another subject, I had hopes for this part: (32627) and I'm now realizing that the underside wasn't designed like the 4x4 dish at all, and that the border is slightly too thick, by like a fraction of a mm, and it will not cover 8 studs like the dish can, only 4. Weird design :( Normally such a part should have had either a thin border like the dish, OR cutouts for studs like round plates have. And where does it originally come from? Minifig blind bags. It's too often that minifig "accessories" are designed like not fully part of the system.

Pretty useful, thanks I'm a sucker for black/grey parts, I think? you missed these: (was still in stock when I ordered)

Has anyone ever been missing black rollerskates in their order? Oddly this is the second time that specific part (but also in silver) is missing from an order, here. They're cheap & not worth bothering Lego's service, but I find strange to have this happening twice for the same part.

I have a hard time believing that they'd do this just to spare some plastic, because it's really little, especially for a part that's in no way mass-produced like plates, & most likely the flashing/holders from the mould are wasting more plastic than this. I'd suspect that, because the wheel holders are not clips but holes, and require you to split appart the frame in order to insert the wheels, the gap was enlarged to leave more room to open the frame without risking breaking it? Does the back fork have the same indent as the front one to insert the wheel easier?

I can also imagine that there are minor/obscure revisions (like that bike) that Lego itself wouldn't differenciate, and would pack in sets according to remaining stock. Now consider that a BL seller can part out a known set, it would be a problem if the inventory for that set lists the new revision, while the seller gets an old part in his. Reminds me of one that actually matters, especially when you mix & match these slopes: https://rebrickable.com/blog/107/mysterious-slope/

Not in stock yet, but interesting;: (DBG, right after the release of LBG) Also, I've spotted this one back in LBG in set 75244, so I'd expect it appearing soon. It has become quite rare in LBG, as it has only been part of a CMF up to now.

3 recolors I was waiting for, + the trans black garage door part that had become rare enough I believe