jrs

Thanks @aFrInaTi0n. For sure. It's definitely not a critical bug.

@Murdoch17 Thank you. Much appreciated.

I have been experiencing a bug on my profile activity tab and all activity tab. I recently started a new topic "[MOCs] New J. R. Snotly Builds 12/18/25 (includes: X-Wing, Luke's Landspeeder, LAAT, STAP)" but it only shows up when clicking on "see activity" then either "posts" or "topics". It doesn't show up under "activity" or under "see activity" then "all activity". It was likely caused by me trying to edit the new topic immediately after posting it (I was so fast I had to wait 10 seconds before being allowed to post my edit). I have since tried editing the post to see if that would change anything. It does make the topic appear on my profile for a few minutes but then when I recheck later it has disappeared again. To fix it might require an admin to delete the post and for me to start over. I care about this because I don't think people will see my topic (which feature mocs) unless it is naturally displayed on my profile. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

@Daiman and @Robotbikeboy, Thank you both for your kind words.

@Max_Lego Thank you.

Another batch of midi/minifigure scaled custom Star Wars MOCs. This is my second group of builds uploaded to Flickr. - The two Tie Fighters are quite similar, each with a cool back engine. - The AT-ST is extra small with skinny legs but fits up to 3 figs. -The droideka is miscolored but includes all the important bits. Each photo is linked so clicking on it will load the album with additional pictures and info. [05/25][MOC] Tie Fighter [05/25][MOC] AT-ST [05/25][MOC] Droideka [05/25][MOC] Tie Interceptor

@BrickJonas Thank you. Part 18491 is the same length, though doesn't give you the same height without the attachment pins being above the ship. I mostly turned it down because a full figure cannot fit inside it. I'm not the best at hangar mocs, but I've got a finished droideka so maybe.

@Artizan, @Max_Lego, @Daiman, & @LEGO Train 12 Volts Thank you all for the kind words and reception. I agree with the snowspeeder and AT-RT being good quality. I am also happy with the helmet on the N1 starfighter engines. @Artizan On the topic of the non LEGO canopy, Inthert's linked ship is significantly deeper than my design. The throwbot visor used for his canopy front is fairly shallow heightwise making it uncompatible with fitting a figure in this small of ships. A LEGO part version could be 92474 which I think looks adequate enough.

These are the first five albums of my custom Star Wars MOCs uploaded to Flickr. All of these try to emphasize being smaller than the average minifig scale (which I feel is too big generally). I would say they are minifig scale but others might disagree. The last two (N1 & A wing) use a non LEGO canopy as there isn't an official LEGO one small enough. Feel free to ask/comment about any of them, just be sure to specify which one you are referencing. Clicking on an image should take you to each album's page for additional info and images (as long as I linked it right). [04/25][MOC] Snowspeeder [04/25][MOC] Speederbike [04/25][MOC] AT-RT [04/25][MOC] N1 Naboo Starfighter [04/25][MOC] A Wing

MOC by J. R. Snotly Practice 1 <a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jrsnotly_builds/54474662855/in/dateposted-public/" title="[04/25][MOC] Snowspeeder (1/9)"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54474662855_567a6b115e_z.jpg" width="640" height="455" alt="[04/25][MOC] Snowspeeder (1/9)"/></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Description MOC by J. R. Snotly Practice 2 [url=https://flic.kr/p/2qZJTp6][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54474662855_567a6b115e_z.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/2qZJTp6] Description [url=https://flic.kr/p/2qZJTp6][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54474662855_567a6b115e_z.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/2qZJTp6][04/25][MOC] Snowspeeder (1/9)[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/jrsnotly_builds/]J. R. Snotly Builds[/url], on Flickr

First Name: John Handle: J.R. Snotly Info: Age 27 male living in Utah I am a custom MOC designer with builds centered on the Star Wars theme. My intent is to build scaled MOCs that don't feel disproportionately oversized compared to a minifigure but that accommodate functional interiors and cockpits. I enjoy building items of different sizes. Examples include large ships, single fig vehicles, micro/nano scaled ships. I have five MOC's that are designed and ready to share but am waiting for pieces to arrive. I'm also in the process of setting up a Flickr and Sales Page for instructions. I have enjoyed Eurobricks since I made an account as a teen; however, I am officially introducing myself now in preparation to start sharing my builds. LEGO has been a part of my life since my childhood and I am excited to connect with others with a similar brick affinity.

Correct. I’m expecting $50-100 for only a few pieces and don’t want to spend that much. I meant cheap pins as in quality and functionality not price.

Anyone have advice on finding custom produced/non-Lego technic parts and/or making your own? For a while I have wanted to be able to get technic half pins and 3/4 pins but with friction ridges. Since Lego doesn't offer any, I have been trying to find non-Lego or custom options but have struggled to find any. So far I've done deep searches on Aliexpress and Google with no results. I've had some luck contacting sellers on Aliexpress directly and putting in a request for them to produce the piece which I will likely try if I can't find any. I've also looked at options for designing/producing the parts myself. I thought about a resin mold but as the part doesn't currently exist, I feel that would be harder to get exact. I've considered shapeways, but don't fully understand their pricing and fear that it would be quite expensive for cheap pins. Anyway, any and all advice would be appreciated. Also, I'm sorry CrankyCraig but I don't know. It'd be sad if if was no longer being updated. Hopefully someone else knows more.

Somewhat. Its uses do stack up pretty evenly with the boat stud, if not better. Strengthwise, neither are really designed to connect large amounts of weight as neither are able to be reinforced easily or if they are it's from the bottom and at that point you might as just well use a 2x2 round plate. 3679 actually provides stronger stud connections as it doesn't have cut corners like the boat stud. The boat stud could not perform the above pictured connection. 3679's thin nature and possibility to break isn't a big issue as most applications will include less force than the stud connections on 3679, definitely not enough to hurt the piece. Both have thinner edges if you need to avoid some form of overlap though 3679 would be more versatile in this aspect because its thinner at the edges, thinner for a longer distance, and only .8 studs in diameter rather than 1. Both extend .4 studs at their thickest points. 3679's big potential for use comes from the ability to create such thin yet sturdy connections for mostly decorative uses. For example, thin looking connection such as the wings in Inthert's Naboo Starfighter or thin connections in tight spaces like in anothergol's at-st. (the upper two are obvious, but the lower two are a better example of why only 3679 would work) Definitely if you are just looking for this offset it makes most sense to just put it on a larger plate where strength won't be an issue, as long as that fits your model's design.

Agreed Lyichir. As important as the standards "not breaking pieces" and "playability for children" are for the LEGO company as the method of determining legal and illegal techniques, "whether a connection type fits both the form and function of a model" stands as a better test for the average builder to evaluate if a connection type is appropriate to use in a build. Techniques used in a microscale build may not work well in a minifig scaled build and vice versa. Also, you may create/find a great looking build but if it is too weak to even touch without breaking, frustrations during assembly may sour your opinion of the build. On a personal note, the wording “sturdy and resilient” created for me, the perfect mental reference point capturing the essence behind what’s required from a LEGO model. Thank you for using those words!

Many thanks!

Hi Snipe, Intriguing. Apologies for bumping as well but this piece has so much potential I couldn't not inquire about it. It seems to act like the thin ring from part 4081a but without the attachment plate. Very useful for reversing stud direction in small spaces and builds. What is the part name of the whole assembly on BrickLink? I've wanted a piece like this for a while and tried looking for it but couldn't locate it by the description above. The only thing I could find that looked somewhat close was a Fabuland stroller wheel assembly and the only mention of it online is your post. Thanks, jrs

Two Questions: Would you consider this a proper building technique for MOC building? Would LEGO consider this a legal building technique? My Thoughts: I am personally hesitant to use this in a build as it feels wrong to have the small sprong sticking out of the bottom. Also because it's so thin there are strain concerns. However connectivity-wise, the stud hubs are the full .6 stud size and not chopped at the corners like almost all 2x2 circular plates' studs (4032, 2654, even 2655) which allows connecting at all four corners (as shown above). It's dimension make it unique. Excluding the middle sprong which runs .25 studs long with a width of .4, it provides a flat .1 stud thick platform with connecting studs on top. Also it has a .8 stud diameter with potential for positioning a connected piece .4 studs onto a flat surface. There is the argument that 3679 and 3680 are meant as one piece and shouldn't be used independently. In most sets today though they are packaged individually and connected later. I don't have an issue with using 3680 independently as it feels about as strong as a normal tile piece. However, 3679 just feels so flimsy when you hold it (though it is quite strong for it's thickness) plus it wasn't designed initially to function as an inverted connector. Conclusion: I'm still hesitant to, but because of the unique uses it proposes I'm leaning towards using 3679 in my building but mostly just for small bearing decoration uses. Since 3679 and 3680 are sold disconnected one could argue LEGO would be okay with the above use, but I would still guess they would say it is illegal. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone knows of a official LEGO set where either 3679 or 3680 are used independently without the other present.

Second test

So I'm confused. As I understand it, Eurobricks doesn't host images and you have to get to a plain .jpg file to have the image appear and work. Yet for the photo below I just pasted the Flickr page url (not a smaller size image share link) and it worked. Anyone have an explanation?