AndyC

You can't install DirectX 9 on Windows 7, but you can install DirectX 9.0c which is a special compatability version that sits alongside 10/11. Make sure you have that download.

Not really. I'm sure TLG could make legs like that, but as Aanchir points out, they just don't look very much like legs. It's not hard to believe that TLG looked at this and rejected the idea for precisely that reason. Just because they don't make the part doesn't mean they couldn't.

Yeah, you can trick it into place, but it doesn't actually "connect" as such.

The only piece it seems to connect to in LDD is http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=3176 - it probably should fit into half thickness technic beams though, which may well be a bug (haven't got the piece handy to check whether it physically fits those)

Should be reasonably easy to do with something like LDD or LDraw I'd have thought, create a model of the minifig you'd like with the camera facing dead on and put it against a mono background. Then just remove anything not the background colour in your favourite image editing app and hey presto one minifig silhouette.

Many factors come into play with things like this. Different companies will have differing overheads, for example. And major retailers like Amazon can take advantage of economies of scale and a much broader product range to decrease their costs per item (in simple terms someone buying a set from Lego will only be buying that set, but someone buying from Amazon may well be persuaded into buying other things at the same time)

Universal probably have some existing agreement to use the likeness of the BTTF Delorean in their marketing materials and sub-licenses. It is, after all, an extremely customised design over and above the original model. That wouldn't necessarily extend to using the DMC logo, which may well explain why a lot of BTTF products conveniently omit it. In any case, it's a safe bet TLG would have long since sorted these kinds of details out before announcing the product.

Surprised by some of the negative feedback here, I think it looks gorgeous and I'll definitely be getting one.

But you spend less in DKK in order to earn those points than you would in Euro, so it all balances out in the end.

Amazing. Never thought I see something like that with completely unmodified parts. And such a cute little train too.

Ah, in that case it may not be an LPub issue at all. I've seen various "issues" if you map a network drive on a host machine and then attempt to access it via the shared folders thing in VirtualBox. You might be better of directly mounting the drive from within the guest OS.

As somebody English, to me using the word "Legos" just sounds plain wrong. Whether it is or isn't grammatically correct isn't really the point though. Ultimately if you dilute the language to the point that legos is simply a term for plastic interlocking bricks, then you have no one but yourself to blame when the Lego you buy on eBay turns out to be nothing more than a pile of cheap knock-off product. That said, I kind of agree with Paul that there really isn't anything to be gained by pulling someone up on it.

Not quite sure the poll fitted my answers, but I tried anyway. I already have a NXT2, which is a cool piece of kit although I haven't ever really done as much with it as I'd hope. Having to code all day probably makes the thought of doing it after-hours a little less exciting. Would I buy more if it were cheaper? Probably. Although I suspect a cheaper version would end up having to be inferior at the same time and I'm not really sure that's the way to make it more desirable. I certainly remember from when I looked into the costing, that buying all the bits individually didn't end up being much cheaper than buying the complete set, so I don't know that excluding the pins/liftarms would really improve things (and it would certainly be harder for TLG to market like that)

There's a great poster by a local artist in my local pub based on the "things that cause cancer according to the Mail" theme. For anyone unaware just how ridiculous it is "Being a Man" and "Being a Woman" are both on the list, "Smoking Cigarettes" however is not.

Yes, I know. I think you're missing the chronology of events, which is important.1. The original Emerald Night model is released. It doesn't have the 1x1 brick in place. 2. Fans who run it motorized for long periods complain about gear slippage problems. 3. TLG issues a "fix" (essentially what you see on Page 6) that prevents the problem. To save money on sending out new parts, this is cunningly done using only pieces that are spare after you've removed from the boiler section when you motorise the set. This way you can either build the engine without the 1x1 un-motorized, or build it taking into account the fix and motorize it (you kind of have to decide early as it's a massive pain to change it later!). 4. Later production runs of the Emerald Night model include extra pieces so that you can include the fix regardless of whether you choose to motorize it (thus not requiring you to decide in advance). The instruction booklet is also updated to include the fixed Page 6, but apparently the other pages are left as-is, which is why you get the discrepancy you originally noted.

IIRC the parts used were spares after you motorise the engine, which is the only time it really mattered. So the "fix" could be retroactively applied to older EN models without needing to obtain any new parts and then extra pieces were added in the revised design so that you didn't need to decide prior to building whether you were planning to motorize it.

I don't agree. Look at the Friends figures, which have a very slight breast and then these proposed minifig molds which have honking great DDs. Then look at how the Friends figures are dressed, very much covered up, whereas the proposal is full of bikini/underwear clad minifig images. If you can't honestly see the difference, I'm genuinely stunned.

The original model didn't have the 1x1 with a hole in it, which occasionally lead to problems with the gearing coming apart. Later models were revised with the fix in place, but I guess they only ever updated the actual page where you put it in and not all the following pages.

The Death Star II set definitely fell apart a few times while building. There's a particularly fragile stage when you're putting the halves together that is a little too easy to go wrong with, resulting in a big crash and a whole bunch of reassembling.

I bought the Bespin one, mostly for Lobot, but I can't say I was overly impressed. I actually think they'd be a lot better if they just ditched the "planet" part entirely and just had a line of small ship models each with a figure.

Another option would be to simply forego IR control of the points and instead just run extension cables back to some PF switches, that way your IR channels are all free for trains and you can recreate the joy of 12V trains, with their myriad of control wires to hide!

I can't really see any practical way of altering the arms that wouldn't detract from the overall aesthetic of the minifig significantly. The only workable option I can see would be replaceable arms, but then you'd just run into the issue that the arm design you wanted wasn't available in the pose you were after. Generally I think we're much better off with them as they are.

I suspect it's the female minifig in (what appears to be) just her underwear that is the principle concern, although quite so much obvious cleavage on show probably also doesn't help (the Friends figs are much more conservatively dressed, for example). That said though, I doubt the project can succeed on Cuusoo anyway, the team have repeatedly said they're geared around single sets that only use existing (albeit possibly re-coloured) parts, so pretty much any project based solely around new pieces is borderline anyway. Combine the two and it's hardly surprising they rejected it straight off.

Yeah, the winter village sets in the past have tended to disappear over the summer and make a resurgence in the run up to xmas, for fairly obvious reasons.

Theoretically, yes it's probably vulnerable (although it's equally possible the version of the library being used has been updated and the about box is out-of-date too). LXF is, however, probably a bit on the obscure side and so probably unlikely to be targeted since malware is usually aiming to hit large numbers of users and "people with LDD installed" probably isn't that great. Although it's yet another example of how easy it is to be running potentially vulnerable software regardless of platform and a good reason to make sure you're always running up to date anti-malware software, just in case.