JesseNight

Thanks! I see on BL forums it's already known and confirmed with the latest version. Let's hope it gets fixed, seeing that thread with known bugs and issues (hundreds...) I don't have the highest hopes, but at least I got that previous version back.

Yeah true there's a lot of air inside, thanks to the rack winder needing all that space. If I ever get my hands on one, I want to try my hands on modifying it. I think it's a beautiful ship, just with a lot of potential for improvement. Like getting rid of the rack winder mechanic and perhaps replacing it with a smaller Technic construction, and creating space for extra crew. Maybe making the underside of the nose a bit nicer too. Preferably while keeping the outside look mostly as it is. I'm not the biggest fan of the Galactic Mediator, they did a lot of things in newer versions that I just feel was better in older ones. Like the old modules are connected with pins, sometimes with some plates and tiles sticking out to make a proper and straight connection. But it was just click, and done. The newer ones have hinged parts that close on studs, and in my experience wanting to disconnect it often leads to the wrong connections coming loose. Another thing I really love about the old one is the rover hidden under the cockpit. While the double canopy on the new looks great, it's not practical bc the bottom one can only open after the top one opens first. I'm finding it odd how the modules are just tunnels with the front and rear fully exposed when disconnected. Anyway that's just my 2 cents about it, it does look good on the outside for sure!

Beautiful model!

I recognized it under the motor car, totally didn't realize you rotated the same part there! Funny thing I just noticed... This micro build has 70% of the parts number as the full size model

Is there a way to downgrade to an older Bricklink Studio version? Mine just upgraded and it's been working like #$%& ever since, as in many parts I add to the scene are completely lacking their connection points. The fault isn't in the parts, bc adding multiple of the same one eventually ends up with one that does have them. It's an issue I've never had before but it makes building an absolute nightmare. I don't know how long BL usually takes to patch such issues, but for now I'd be very happy if I could get the previous version back.

btw what is this part you're using as the black wheels on the front and end? I mean these:

I think as long as the account exists, that remains possible unless the account is set to inactive (and therefore cannot reactivated due to no email address).

Oh that's not lame at all, it's a matter of personal preference. The photo makes way more sense to me, I can't imagine a gap possibly having been intended. I'm sure you're not the first, it's just an old model from pre internet days. And ngl I hope to still add it to my collection some time, it's one of those sets I looked up to but just never had as a kid

That's pretty awesome! And it's still soooo recognizable!

I remember having one such Basic set in the beginning of my young Lego days. While the modern sets surely look closer resembling reality and better detailed, one of the beauties of Basic sets was that it came with instructions for 4-5 very different things (all the things you see on the front of the box/instructions). That's no doubt what Teri means with "how much they did with so few parts". In those days, Technic also had sets like this for young people to get acquainted with the basics of Technic before going into more advanced builds, called Universal Building Sets.

That's probably why they do delete any personal data on request. The thing with forums is that every thread is built from discussion between people. Deleting accounts of previously active members would put massive holes in such threads, making them hard to follow. While you may not have posted a lot, I think they had to set a general policy on the matter. Just look at Reddit for example, older threads there can be hard to follow with deleted posts and accounts in them, and people responding to questions you can no longer see.

Your black 1x2 plates seem to be one stud too far to the front, causing a gap behind them. So yeah, it seems to be a fault in the instructions, the way it looks on the photograph is much better and I personally feel like that's the intended way to build it. If you wanna get rid of the tiny gap that forms at the front when doing it according to the photograph, I suppose the only way to fix this keeping the old model style is to replace these plates with 1x3 ones. If you're not afraid to apply newer building components, some wedges can be used that follow the canopy shape. Ngl, I'd be tempted towards doing this...

Totally agree with that statement, I prefer keeping at least all of a single theme in 1 scale. Nice rebuild!

Oops, yeah I meant that BL number (corrected it). I see I mixed up even more numbers, 3068bpr0699 being the LDraw number. I suppose this only amplifies my point, having 4 or possibly even more numbers for a single part gets confusing! I'm not pointing fingers at anyone bc it's great having all these websites and programs around, just wish they all used the same standard (or correct it after TLG makes it public). [edit] LEGO part number 6465626 Design number 105854 (came across this on Brickset) LDraw 3068bpr0699 Bricklink 3068bpb2339 Brickowl 726374 (so that's 5 already...)

Oh it doesn't even matter to me which are used... The problem lies in the fact that there's different standards (color names and part IDs) for the same things and it's confusing when wanting to find parts on both BL and PAB, or wanting to find a part from irl instruction sheet in BL's Studio. It causes a lot of unnecessary confusion. Even more if you see Brickowl's part IDs are yet different ones from either BL and TLG. I myself am more used to BL's color names too, but the fact is that TLG won't ever change their database as the official owner of these parts. Just would be great if it were the same all across the board. I might think of making a colors sheet but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already. The basic part numbers match yes, but the print suffixes do not. For example 3068 tile 2x2 with the new modern classic space logo print, released with the new 2024 space sets: 3068bpr0699 at TLG, 3068bpb2339 at BL.

I have to agree with what's been said before, it bugs the hell outta me that BL doesn't use official Lego color names... as well as official part numbers for some parts (especialy printed ones). That's honestly even worse bc the common colors at least stick once you figured it out, I can't say the same about part numbers... And to comment on Giantorange's message from 6 years ago, no the sellers won't have to change anything bc listed parts go by an ID number in the database. All they gotta do is change the color name that goes with the ID number. Or at least take it upon themselves to publish a conversion chart.

My adventures stopped around 1996 til last year, so it makes sense I missed that ;) I didn't miss the new Galaxy Explorer, since that was among the reasons I came back to it (along with other Icons).

As a Space fan of the 80s and early 90s I definitely recognize a few. Number 2 is clearly the: Number 3 seems to be the droid from: Number 6 looks like: Number 12 I see a: Number 19 might be the: Number 23 looks like a: Number 24 is definitely the: Number 25 is one of my own youth memories, clearly the:

"like" is such a big word... I must confess I always hated it. For karts and race cars it was really nice and made sense! But an old town sedan that could hold only a single person never sat right with me, even as a very young kid. Back then they all used 4212b frames, I got a ton of those!

Normally embedded Youtube videos auto play in either of these cases: 1) The embed code contains 'autoplay=1', forcing it to auto play for everybody. I can confirm this not being the case because they do not auto play for me. 2) The embed code containing 'allow="autoplay"', in which case it takes over the setting each user has for their own Youtube account. In this case autoplay is a flip switch that can be turned off at the bottom section of the player (that's defaulted to on afaik). Of course there might be other scenarios with custom browsers or plugins, can't say much about this. @2GodBDGlory Maybe you accidentally clicked that auto play flip switch at the bottom of the player some time? It's happened to me before (and had me searching for a while)

I feel old now with my 4 wide vehicles As for parts count, even sets of the 90s that were large in size had only between 30% and 70% of equally sized AFOL sets today. I had no idea the difference was that big...

Every set is potential MOC material to me, but I do build every set at least once. If I really like it (like some older space sets), I might keep it around for a while as a display model.

I can't help being curious about numbers here. Sure I understand the focus is mainly kids... But AFOL generally tend to have a way bigger budget to spend, even if the group itself is smaller. It might differ per world region and per decade, but I've seen plenty of kids who owned no more than 2-3 big sets in all of their childhood, while I see some adults buy 2-3 (or even more) within a few months aiming at a big MOC project they wanna build. Recently went through my entire collection that I owned as a kid. I was actually surprised how many of it were very small sets. But hey, at that age everything appears bigger!

I was kinda visualizing the idea of the regular model, just upped in size with a huge cockpit area using both the big quarter panels connected, and a huge loading area with crane behind. Of course I am not sure how well it all works out since I never owned this model. As a child I was all about the space ships and cared less about ground vehicles

Nice, and it works! Next version twice the width? (would be a possible challenge)