LiamM32

I must be one of the youngest on Eurobricks, so I don't have these memories of getting parts packs in the 1900's. I do however remember browsing Shop-at-Home in the early 2000's (still in elementary school) and seeing these things, but I never got them as my parents were bad at online shopping. I would however appreciate some more, better parts packs available. Although we typically assume that parts packs don't sell as well, I once went to the Lego section of Toys-R-Us during school hours and noticed that there were many parents (without their children) who were looking at the part tubs wishing that there was a better selection of parts packs. I would certainly like to have colour specific parts packs, with an assortment of mostly basic parts. There are two Cuusoo projects for this; Single Color Parts Packs and Speciality Brick Box. Both have disappointing support. As strange as this may sound, I think that a major cause of failure for them is to only use the American spelling of "color", while they should add the international "colour" to the tags. But anyways, you better damn support those projects. Even though there are those ones already on the website, I have considered making my own project for colour-specific parts packs. I have my own idea for an implementation that might be enough to stand-out; My idea is that each pack would not have a fixed inventory of parts. Instead, they would be in polybags with a few hundred grams of random parts in that one colour. This way there could be more parts available (even if more difficult to find the ones you want), and even element/colour combinations never seen in sets. They should also make the parts more common that have a resale value (on Bricklink or Brickowl) much higher than the production costs. Creator sets could potentially be good parts packs, but personally I have two problems; They focus too much on vehicles, and I want basic parts but also in rare colours.

13: 1 point 17: 1 point 19: 1 point

13: 1 point 14: 1 point 23: 1 point

1) tazzy007: 1 point 3) CM4S: 1 point 8) SpacySmoke: 1 point

So many great creations, so difficult to decide with only 3 points to give out. 6) ReslpsaLoquitur: 1 point 29) J.V.D: 2 points

Nice to find that people liked the waterwheel more than I thought they would. It's actually incomplete (rotationally asymmetrical), because I didn't find all the right Technic beams. Your welcome. My parents used to have a friend who was a zombie. He lived quite normally, just went to work as a dentist every day as before (with some patients questioning his teeth). He was a pretty nice calm guy. Well, except for that time when we had to end a house party early when he drank the wrong apple juice. I'm getting too silly now, but I'll have an idea for a MOC when I have nothing better in the way. I think so, as are the other minifigures swimming in the lake. This model takes place in a world of equality between men, women, and monsters. I might add 2 more photos later which I forgot to take. I was going to post one of the boat without the minifigures, and one of the guy at the back.

Interesting; a 2007 set that had cutting. I knew that they used to instruct to cut pneumatic tubes to the right length, but I thought that they started to precut them instead because they no longer wanted to remove cutting from the Lego building experience. Good that Mr Boratko is here, because I was thinking of something in the Vampire GT; See the grey axle between the two U-joints for the steering. Because of the way that it's angled, it would either be a bit loose or a bit stressed. How does it fit in?

I have never thought of that connection specifically before. One problem I have with Technic frames, especially the smaller ones; is that they could (theoretically) make an assembly very difficult to undo. If someone put element 6538 connector in one of those frames and slid 2 2L axles in through the pinholes then it could be very difficult to pull them out. It may be good to include a feature on the Brick separator to remove axles from pinholes. Maybe I'm overthinking an unlikely problem, but there may be some children who have a day when they feel like doing something that they know is a bad idea, and they trap a connector and 2 axles in that frame piece. Now here is an assembly to test yourself on. Legal or illegal? (Click)

This is a creation originally built for the Monster Bash contest, but it couldn't be entered because it's on a 12x20 base (which must have been 16x16 to be entered). To stand out, I decided to locate my monster fighters and monsters party on a boat. It's supposed to be a steamboat, as Monster Fighters has a mildly steampunk theme. I never got around to getting a Monster Fighters set before, so I didn't have the minifigures that would be really helpful for the theme. So I went out to buy the 3 smallest Monster Fighters sets, to find out that they were on sale at the Lego Store , because the line is getting discontinued . The monster fighters have agreed with the monsters that they are no longer enemies. They go out on a steam boat one evening to have a party in the centre of a lake. The fireplace is normally used to boil water to run the steam engine, but the witch has found it useful for cooking. (Sorry. You can barely see the pot in the witch's hand.) Three monster fighters (Ann, Jack, & Rodney) and a swamp monster enjoy swimming in the lake in the evening. The swamp monster hunts fish for the group to eat (shown handing one over to Frank). The mummie jumps in to join them, which is probably not such a great idea for what he is. A ghost is chained to the roof to light the dark path when the boat is driven. The water wheel is stopped, so the zombie stands there to drink his wine. Fun fact: Unlike how they're typically portrayed in fiction, zombies are generally not more dangerous or aggressive than the people that they were before they died. However, the way that they are often shown in film resembles their actual behaviour when drunk. In case if your interested in seeing this again, you can see the page on MOCpages.

I was just horrified when they said that they will no-longer tell us why the projects failed the review. This is something that people are curious about. It is very dissappointing after such a long wait for the 3-season review results. The amount of information that they gave before was quite minimal, so it couldn't give-away too much secret information that they would want to keep. It just makes us feel farther from the company. I agree with the first part. Of course Legend of Zelda is more recognizable to non-fans. It is also arguably easier to understand for those who aren't familiar with either game franchise. I would say no to the idea of the "Nintendo" theme. Knex already has the Mario license. Pokemon has too much collectibility of it's own to be mashed with anything else. Even outside of those points; Even Lord of the Rings is separated from the Hobbit more than consumers would expect it to be, so they wouldn't separate Mario and Zelda more.

Damn, damn, dammit. I have already built most of my entry at 12x20. It is an idea that wouldn't work within 16 studs. You should get more flexible.

I hope that I could get a response to the above post by Peppermint_M, because I'm now almost finished by 12x20 contest entry.

I'm sorry to make another suggestion to change the area limit. I have a good idea for a submission, but my idea wouldn't work very well in a square base, so I want to do it on a 12x20 base. The total area of this base (240 studs) is slightly less than 16x16 (256 studs). I would change the rule so that the length and width must have a sum of 32.

I know that you rejected my suggestion to bump-up the area limit for the creatures lair contest, but it would be helpful for this smaller one. I would increase this one from 8x8 to 8x16. It would take a bit more space than 8x8 to have a simple interesting battle scene, but not really requiring as much as the lair or hang-out. The wider shape could also be good for depicting 1 party vs the other.

Nice. I love the works of Nannan Zhang. He became my favourite MOC artist when I first got involved in the Lego online community, discovering his work after I already bought the Emerald Night from him on BrickLink. I checked out the shop. The items are priced above my budget, but at least this is for a good reason. They are poorly categorized though. They should be categorized on Bricklink as "Custom Items", not "Sets", then further categorized into custom sets, custom minifigs, etc.

This is why I think that they should do a rerun of the Mata-Nui era. The story went down in late years, so I think that it's best to rerun the good story that they already have. I honestly think that the story would feel fresh enough to the young guys of the time. The children who do know about it tend to like it. For years when I was young I wished that I could get the discontinued sets (having parents who hesitated to order online). I would prefer if they make some improvements built onto the Mata-Nui sets, but should not remove the features that made the old ones good (like the functions). If they were to continue with a new story (never made in set form), then I think that it should take place before the Toa Metru. The Great Disturbance could be a good place in the timeline to start from.

One thing that I have done a bit of is making alternate models to MOCs. Alternate models aren't included as instructions in all sets, but it's much more of something for sets than MOCs. Thinking back to what I used to do on Digital Designer, once I designed a Creator freight train set, where each individual car had it's own alternate model. For play features; I actually like to put more/better play features than what's typicall in official sets. I think that Technic functions are underutilised as play features in sets, which I like to put more of in my creations. I mostly mean for system MOC's, but you can see the page of my Bionicle MOC Toa Leham. Click on it in my signature.

It's interesting. I was initially excited to see that there are 5 new contests for Monster Fighters, as I have been constantly working on a fairly large (only by my standards) MOC for a few weeks which could easily be converted into Monster Fighters theme. I was dissapointed to see that the contests are all limited to 16 x 16 vignettes. This is a good balance between accessibility and building potential for many people, but I think that there should still be just one of these contests that allows larger models. The Creature's Lair contest would be a good one to expand to larger models, as it is likely to involve architectural and maybe geological building. Leave the other contests for 16x16 vignettes though, as they already are.

There is a reason for the similarity in size of the sets that you are not mentioning. The Grand Emporium uses all 3 floors for the same shop, and the building takes up a superaverage total floor-space for a modular buildings set. Most of the building in the Parisian Restaurant set is only 24L-wide rather than 32L like most side buildings, and the restaurant itself only takes up 2 of the 3 floors. From my judgement, the Fire Bridgade also seems to be smaller, with 2 instead of 3 floors. The silliest example that you used was the Pet Shop. The actual shop is only 1 of the 3 floors in half the regular width, making it take approximately 1/6 of the Grand Emporium space. Sure the size variation is wider in real life, but minifigure scale appears to be exponential rather than a consistant ratio. The Pet Shop and Grand Emporium are the two modular buildings that I have, so I have seen these ones. I personally think it sort of silly to get multiples of an already large set to make a bigger model. I might appreciate the extra space to add a 2nd direction for the escalator. I think that bringing it to 4 copies would be to obsessive over useful, but spend your money as you please. Seeing the image that you linked to, some people are just far too obssessed with making their models big. I have to disagree that it looks better. The didn't add much extra detail when they added to the size. I went to Harrod's in London on my first European trip this summer. But even though that store in particular is the most similar-looking, it's a terrible example of a "realistic size". I have always lived in a North American city of 1.6 million, but I would have difficulty believing if anyone told me that Horrod's is standard-sized for a European department store. Maybe the wanted GE to be based on the most famous shop for recognizability, but shrunk it to a smaller-sized department shop. I certainly agree about the escalators. That was a design flaw that I myself noticed when I was pictures of the set. The possible explanation that I could think of is that the escalator alternates directions, but that idea is too unusual to assume that we're expected to think of it as that. I have this set now, partially built. I also really agree with the second paragraph. I like the more realistic scale of Modular Buildings over most other sets, but I wouldn't want to go any further than that. This is partially because of my lower budget; But after I have a good-enough sized department store, I would much rather spend my money on developing other features of the town.

Surpised that no one has explained it so specifically by now. Illegal connections generally break the rules of Lego geometry. They could be considered "illegal" if pieces are connected in a way that is slightly off of how they are supposed to fit by a very small distance, often holding the parts in a bent position. For a while I used to think that Lego geometry was made of spaces multiples of 0.8mm, or 1/10 of an L (with the possible exception of flexible parts and Technic parts in various angles). But now I have realized that there are a few parts that go into multiples of 1/20 of an L. I wish it was kept at multiples of 1/10 to keep the geometry simple. Many illegal connections seem to be off by 1/20 L.

This is great. Lighting is something that I would like to see more of in Lego. It's difficult to fit the existing Lego light bulbs and cables into minifigure-scale models, but you managed to do it well. I have been thinking of an idea that I plan to post on Lego Cuusoo in the future; An interior lighting system using optical fibers to easily go through models and save space.

Nice topic to find, Gregory. I think that I have done a bit of this, as well as the other category. I like to make concepts of products. I think that I've done a bit of models with both physical parts and LDD (mostly LDD), intended as an idea for a set. When I do this, I stay mostly on the lines of what's normaly seen in Lego sets, but also place in my original ideas of features that should be in sets. I have also thought of ideas for themes, but never put-down much being a slow builder on a limited budget. I also have thought of ideas for products that aren't building kits, like gear and accessories. Those ideas are typically expressed on paper, as they often relly on new elements and the way that they're sold. On Google Sketchup, I have made some 3D models of element concepts. When I decide on the right place to host images and find time to write about them, I plan to post the element concepts on this topic. Lego Cuusoo has probably boosted the popularity of this MOC building field. But some members there may go too far off. I have not posted any projects there yet, but want to in the future. Do you have any Cuusoo projects active or planned, GregoryBrick?

Crap; I had my own idea for the next Technic contest that I never got around to publicly posting. Oh well, maybe next time. This contest didn't strike much excitement on me at first, but people posting seem to like it (as mine had unpredictable appeal). This contest appears to be a very broad topic, while my idea (and To sail the Technic Sea to a lesser extent) a more specific and untried theme. Now I think that co-operating machines could still be an interesting idea to explore, which is not nearly as common in Technic as System. I have never entered a Lego building contest before. But I should try to make an entry. I am a slow builder without a very large Technic collection, but hopefully this generous deadline will be enough for me to put something together. I like the prizes; My brother wants to get 42007 Dirt Bike (3rd), I've wanted save-up for 42008 Service Truck (2nd) since months before release, and the 1st-place prizes are sets that appeal to me but beyond my own budget. I will make sure to vote, which I could not last time because I signed-up while To Sail the Technic Sea was still running. I want to suggest minor changes to the rules, as I saw some little flaws: I think that the contest (and other EB contests) should be more open to new members voting. I personally experienced the issue because I joined Eurobricks while To Sail the Technic Sea was running, so I was dissapointed that I couldn't vote. This rule should be rewritten to reduce or resist voting from new members instead of forbidding it entirely. If there are multiple votes per each existing member, than maybe just give one vote to every new member. Alternately, there could be ways to be exempt from the rule of sign up time, such as posting an Introduction topic, reaching Vassal status, or posting a MOC. 1500 is fairly good total part limit, but 500 per-model may be a bit too limiting; as I think it would be nice to have moderate variation in size. A better part limit would be 1400 in total and 700 per-model. But I also think it would be better to replace the part limit with a mass limit, with the total limit being twice as much as the limit per-model. A mass limit does not encourage larger parts, and limits electronics without forbidding them, without the trouble of counting the parts. I also have a question; I know that the machines themselves must be built purist. But could I use natural materials (like sticks and stones) as cargo? Like an excavator lifting pebbles or a logging truck carrying sticks. I think that this should be allowed. Lastly, thanks for being generous with the deadline. Even a builder as slow as me might be able to make it for this one.

I'm not worried that BrickOwl commited a "copyright infringement". But ever since I found out about BrickOwl, it just seemed to me like a pointless duplication of Bricklink. Unless if they are making sufficient improvements over Bricklink, then there isn't much use in having another Lego online marketplace. I have a few problems with it, but overall I think that Bricklink has most of the features I would want and a good interface to get around them. But I think that it's ridiculous that there were copyrights on the part naming. Threating a lawsuit is just mean. The person who started the site (Daniel) wanted it to be free, it was put together open-source, and the names are quite generic. I don't see the same colour naming as a copyright infringement, but I just wish that BrickOwl used the official names instead. Official colour naming is an improvement that I wanted to see. However, I'm happy to see that they have listings for printed and stickered versions of each part, which is a feature that I wanted on Bricklink. Maybe I'll start to prefer BrickOwl if they make some more improvements. Also, I was under the impression that Bricklink (the whole website, not the individual shops) was non-profit; I don't see any (external) advertisements there, and I didn't think that there was a fee to run a shop. But I guess that I was wrong, or else they wouldn't have this problem with "competition".

Sounds like it didn't turn out entirely bad, but still more problematic than I expected. I mean, even with the way you described him, I was surprised by the giant wishlist on arrival, and building Lego during work hours. I wouldn't avoid him like others are suggesting, but it's too bad about how he took his new hobby. Good efforts on your part to stay on track.