anothergol

This said, they're 2 parts that pretty much go together & with nothing else, no? Kids will never need to separate them.

One designed around the wheelchair part, the other not. Mixed SW figures that will probably make SW fans cry :) https://flic.kr/s/aHskDWq34u https://flic.kr/s/aHskGd4WEN

While I had troubles adding the listing at Rebrickable (not every recent part was available), BL should have no problem with it, even alternate part #'s are ok at BL. However it's something that still needs manual work on your side, because some parts are hidden & you can pick whatever color a shop has in stock, and you may also pick alternate parts (like different molds of jumpers) if a shop has them in stock & not the others. Same thing with the printed parts that don't exist in the LDD, you will need to check my photos for that.

Looking nice. I too have another build, but the other of the old v1, which I'm gonna disassemble to build another new one. The cables under the body wrap above it btw, like on this pic (the original has 3 doing the same thing, in a slightly different way)

Crap projects won't be archived, but who does searches in the archive anyway? Newcomers do search a little, but afterwards they just check out what's new from time to time.

Thanks It's tall but not very heavy, so there is no stability problem. It's also as sturdy as it needed to be. The fragile part is where the feet's ball join is attached to the angled plate, it's only 2 studs. I tried several pilots but that one was cool because it itself had tubing.

Sure but the existence of obviously-fake renders doesn't prove much. And let's remember that the Lego movie did a good job at looking like stop motion (granted, not for the same reasons). Many people are actively working on Lego rendering afterall, working on fixing each clue that it's a render. For me, the biggest clues are molding lines & imperfections, that are generally not featured in 3D models of the parts. But such a collection of very HQ models is doable. Then misaligned parts/building imperfections - many tools already do this, they generally do it wrong, but this is doable too. The fabric looks very real, but still, fabric in 3D isn't new technology anymore. I also looked for repetitions of textures (like, dust) - I couldn't find any in these pictures. However the few dust speckles look kinda misplaced, like on plain tiles (where they would be easy to digitally remove), instead of being where they usually are (in-between parts, where they're harder to remove). I overlapped the shots of the minifigs that look like they all the same pose. They don't overlap, sign that they're real pictures. Yet, look at this part closely if you own one, it doesn't look like this at all (well, mine don't). And it doesn't look redone in 2D either. To me the biggest clue that it's not 3D is not that it's not doable today, but rather "why would they spend so much time doing that?". Yet, I also wonder why they would spend so much time reworking real pictures this much. Especially if it's to make the end result look fake in many places.

But why would Lego make every stud look so 3D-rendered? I really can't tell, I can see as many clues that it's real (like, the cloth on minifigs, molding defects) as clues that it's rendered (that weird 3D feel, dirt specles that look fake). Many have worked hard on making 3D renders look real, maybe Lego went ahead. This one especially looks SO digital But that texture on the side dish may also have been completely redone due to the reflections of the camera, proving that it's a picture. Also this one, the texture on the horns is totally fake. Sure, the cloth looks real, but it's not like it's still an achievement to make cloth look real in 3D. Also, on a real minifig you'd pinch the body better and there wouldn't be such a gap. To me it's 3D with more attention to details (that they usually do for some boxes)

I think all of these pics are 3D. Possibly heavily post-processed pictures, I don't know. Lots of hints that it's 3D and a few hints that it's not. But why would Lego post-process all the studs for them to look so fake?

Having made an AT-ST myself, I can tell you that ball-joints, even with extenders, have to be excluded for kidproof stuff. Ok for an UCS, but here Lego doesn't have much choice. The ratchet joint is good, but can't be used for every joint. And even as strong as it is, Lego still feels the need to stack 2 of them, so it really has to be kidproof, to them. That's what I keep telling to those nagging about SW stuff in Lego Ideas. "Lego has already made one". Sure, but Lego makes most of its sets for kids, the price to pay is always the look, there's always interest for better looking and more fragile versions. Where you can blame Lego is the head, it could really have been made much better and still kidproof. The lack of room for 2 seats however, that's doable but rather hard for something that has to be very solid. It would be possible to make a strong one without all this bulk inside, though. So this AT-ST isn't that bad, especially considering how bad the previous ones were. But it's not amazing either. Only reason I'm gonna buy it is that I need the pilot's printed helmet. Funny that each AT-ST has to have that pseudo-walking-legs thingy, while the AT-DP didn't have it. Faking walking like this, especially now that kids have walking intelligent robots, isn't that for low ages?

Pretty cool

Wanted to build some dark cyborg/mech full of tubes filled with white gooey blood, inspired by Blame! 's universe. The name was chosen to fit the cockpit's (no pun intended) lips-like design. https://flic.kr/s/aHskHCmbg7

While it would be fair to blame Lego for the once-again-ugly (but better than the previous ones) head of this AT-ST, they can't do better for the legs, it wouldn't be kids-friendly at all.

I can't tell if they made real pictures look 3D using crap blooming, or if it's all 3D. To me all vehicle shots look 3D, but close ups on minifigs have printing defects that make them look like real. So I'm wondering if we can trust the pictures as for knowing what will be printed & what's gonna be a sticker. Looks like pretty much everything will be a sticker.

I've used that oil to remove prints, and it did a great job at it, however it also burnt the parts. So I'd say care has to be taken.

Pretty nice & smooth, I like it. I'm only bugged by the bulge on the roof.

If you check closely, you'll see it's a strong feminist who made that project. Ironic, because to me "women of anything" is the most misogynic project you could think of. It's pretty much "hey, women can do it too!" - like there were doubts about it. I find it sad that they don't tell why a project got rejected. The large T-Rex, one of the most beautiful Lego builds, got rejected twice, they don't even say why. Perhaps too fragile? Would be stupid if it was for licensing reasons.. for a T-Rex.

It looks pretty cool IMHO, even if the bi-color scheme is boring. I'm exciting by those macaronis in black, that improved the arch.

Fine, but it's you few against the (minimum) 10k who voted for those projects you don't see fitting on Lego Ideas. The UCS speeder just got its 10k btw. Pretty good, I had voted for it.

Ok, then explain the difference between 10187 & 10252. The gap is huge, and you can't blame the lack of parts in 2008 - MOCs in 2008 were already doing better than this blocky crap. It's the designer who made the difference. And, "on par with anything a fan could create", for a pro? Shouldn't pro stuff be better than fan-made stuff? You told about modulars - here as well, today's modulars are better, because the designers improved. As I wrote, I'm starting to see, since last year, official sets that are good like good MOCs. But before this? Name one, and I'm sure I will find a MOC that was much better. Also, the quality is only one of many factors to sell a set, so it's normal that Lego doesn't put as much effort or time as a hobbyist would. We're talking D2C stuff here, not really for young children. Yeah I understand why Lego's upcoming AT-ST is ugly - if I had to design one for kids, it would probably be that ugly. Lego's UCS AT-ST however, that wasn't designed for children. Well, you said it was about the idea and the build. I just proved you that it wasn't about the idea. After there have been 30 Wall-E projects on Lego Ideas, it stops being an idea (if you really insist that "Lego + Wall-E" is really an idea that one guy had). It's how you present the concept that matters (thus, the build & the pictures), and only that. Sure, to the voter, the concept matters, it's certainly not new that a license sells. But the one who made the entry had no idea, he worked on a build. Lego + Wall-E isn't more an idea than Lego + some Star Wars stuff. I think the problem here is the website's title, but that's just a title, & not even its original one. Cuusoo, which still exists, is about (quoting their website) "materlizing wishes". In any case, what you think Lego Ideas is not made for, is what people are voting for. And Lego doesn't seem to have a problem with it. So they should know better. Do a search on Ideas for Catheram btw. Yes, this one too was not a "new idea", and you will easily understand why this is the one that people voted for. The build.

Lego hardly releases anything that has the quality of MOCs out there. First, because most sets are for kids & have other requirements. Second, yes, it's because their designers aren't that good. It's very new that some Lego official sets have MOC-quality, like the Beetle. Lego certainly doesn't need a website to license stuff. If you're cynical, then Lego isn't about builds, nor ideas, at all. It's there for 2 reasons: free advertisement for Lego, done by users themselves, and Lego gauging interest in specific licenses. Do you think Lego needs you to think of Adventure Time? Lego needs Lego Ideas to gauge interest in Adventure Time, yeah. It's also a nice backdoor for a legit company to measure interest in licenses that they don't own, without having to use those licenses themselves (which would require owning them in the first place). Can't their, quoting you, amazing designers design an Adventure Time set? No, they could have made it themselves, only they would have taken the (little) risk that no one was interested in an Adventure Time set. But please, Adventure Time + Lego, that's not an idea. Or let me flip through the IMDB and tell you about all of my "ideas".. Oh *really*? Are you saying that when the DeLorean project was added, there was no Lego DeLorean yet? There were plenty, and there were plenty on Lego Ideas. Same thing for Doctor Who. Tell me, if it's "the idea" of Wall-E that was interesting, why didn't this one pass? https://ideas.lego.com/projects/94740 Or this one? https://ideas.lego.com/projects/99534 Or this one? https://ideas.lego.com/projects/89195 Or any of these? https://ideas.lego.com/projects/93758 https://ideas.lego.com/projects/81892 https://ideas.lego.com/projects/80849 https://ideas.lego.com/projects/80731 https://ideas.lego.com/projects/76543 https://ideas.lego.com/projects/77597 (+dozens of others) ..mmh? It's because the idea is worthless, it's the BUILD that counts. Had THIS Wall-E passed https://ideas.lego.com/projects/23327, I wouldn't have bought it. I don't buy ideas. And Lego wouldn't have turned that entry into the Wall-E that we got. Like it or not, but someone took an existing *cough* idea, and implemented it well, and that's what people voted for, the build.

I don't agree, to me the idea doesn't count, the build does. If Lego produces another DeLorean and that one looks good (or even just acceptable), I'll buy it. I'm sure many bought "the idea", or in fact, just the minifigs. But the car looks horrible, I'm still waiting for a good one. You said it yourself, Ecto1 was a good build - I bought it for that reason as well. It was still "something existing + Lego". What you may consider "ideas" would be the birds (very arguably), and the exo-suit. But that doesn't matter to me, I don't buy ideas. Any one has "ideas", just pick anything at random, and add Lego to it. Now for the real, hard part: build it properly. With that reasoning, Lego shouldn't do any Millennium Falcon because Lego has already done it. Look at Marshal Banana's one, that's the ultimate one, I wish he was adding it to Ideas, and he would get 10k votes in no time. It doesn't matter that Lego has already done it. Lego has done it (& will do it forever) for kids, Lego has done it for adults, but Lego has never done it with this quality. Maciej Szymański 's AT-AT is already much better than Cavegod's. LiLMeFromDaFuture's progress so far is better as well. There's still a lot of room for improvement here, especially on large builds. More recently jhaelego's build is good as well.

I hadn't seen this yet. Pretty cool.

That's irrelevant, because Lego had a classic AT-ST & an UCS one on the shelves at the same time. Not the same thing, not the same target. And "an AT-ST" is NOT the/an idea, at all. Hardly anything on Lego Ideas is "an idea", other than "this existing idea, + Lego". It's the build that matters. There has been zero "idea" that passed so far on Lego Ideas. Not even the maze is an idea, as it exists as "not Lego". But the guy built a working version, that's where the value is. What I'm saying is that if you're posting on Lego Ideas AND you expect your stuff to pass, you're delusional. Most likely, it won't. If you're very very lucky, it will. You can be sure that all the kids who made the entries listed in this thread, are the only ones who really believe Lego is gonna pick their stuff. There's a difference between posting a build that you *expect* Lego to produce, and posting a build that you *would agree* to be produced by Lego. This is what differenciates Lego Ideas from Flicker or MOCPages - it's not every MOCer's choice to want Lego to mass-produce his stuff. So that's how I view Lego Ideas. If someones builds a cool MOC and wanna keep the only build for himself, then Flicker is perfect. If he would also *agree* for it to be mass-produced, and believes that there would be enough people interested in that, then he should post on Flicker *and* Lego Ideas. So it's not the *purpose*, because it's (almost certainly) not gonna happen. If you're very lucky, then it will happen. If not, then still be happy about the views you got. If you did it only for that purpose of Lego to produce it, all you're gonna get is disappointment. On top of other people telling you, after it's all done, "see, no one voted for it, you should have known this in advance and not have posted it". Yes, because that's exactly what you're doing here, you're telling me that I'm polluting Lego Ideas because I know that my entries aren't gonna get voted for. But the reason I know that they aren't gonna be voted for, is simply that I'm not stupid. Would be a nice surprise if they were, but I would be stupid to expect them to be. The only thing I would have advised to people posting entries would have been "at least make the effort of not using retired parts, and avoiding illegal connections". And yet, at least one project passed that wasn't following this. So even that is irrelevant.

I doubt that the author really has anything to say. It's also disrespectful for those who voted. I well understand that Lego can't use retired parts & has to discard illegal connections. But look at what the already not-so-amazing DeLorean project became.. Some projects, like Wall-E, were improved, though. of course it would be a special case of Lego Ideas, I'm not saying they should pick any project that's already there Still, the many votes send Lego a message. You will probably disagree with these again (because, Star Wars), but they got votes. https://ideas.lego.com/projects/144406 https://ideas.lego.com/projects/91535 Even if it doesn't pass Lego's selection, large UCS sets being voted for over & over, that can't be ignored by Lego. And they're cool to look at, unlike all the crap listed in this thread. And they're not that many, they're not crowding Lego Ideas.