fred67

Well, LegoMonorailFan asked what it would take to make a successful monorail ideas project. That's 10k. If your target is 1k for you to consider it successful, that's fine, but a successful ideas project needs to reach 10k, and a monorail is not going to do it without stepping outside the world of LEGO to get there. It doesn't have to be Disney; I doubt they'd consider the Simpsons verboten at this point. Perhaps there is some popular working monorail system that can be mimicked. Whatever the hook is, the point is that a monorail project is going to need one in order to "succeed." Most of the non-licensed projects have some kind of hook - either science related, a socio-political agenda (not that I'm complaining, I'm absolutely not), or some some other appeal to classic items (the maze, ship in a bottle) that people think fondly of. About the only one I can't explain is the old fishing store, and I suppose it's just an awesome build. In any event, those projects got a lot of support from people who wouldn't normally be participating in the LEGO community.

True, my bad, but then it makes even less sense to not buy 32x32 just because you can't them in tan anymore.

They won't reissue the old system because of the cost of the track... they'd also have to figure a way to make it work with PF, as they wouldn't create a new motor that wasn't compatible. I know this is a "what would you want," and not "what could conceivably make TLG release a monorail" (although LegoMonorailFan asked about making a successful ideas project), but there has to be a compromise between new parts, cost, and demand. Low demand means new parts need to be low cost. So, then, keeping in mind people have already built some nice sets using PF, an efficacious solution that wouldn't "violate" what TLG considers "legal" builds would require decent, but inexpensive track (that wouldn't be under stress) as a starting point. I've suggested elsewhere that 2x (8+ length) curved tiles (let's say 2 together would equal a train track curve, so 2x8, which is certainly not unreasonable, IMO) would make the current efforts "legal," would look great, and I don't think it'd cost a lot (in comparison to existing parts) to make. I can also think of a number of useful things that it could be used for besides monorail. After that, my request would be something to make it easier to have guide wheels (we can do that now, but they generally are too large to look nice). As far as what would be a decent monorail Ideas project that stood a chance of getting 10k votes? It has to have a theme that people can get behind, and the only one I can think o f is Disney. So a MOC that looked like the Disney monorail, with some Disney elements thrown in, would get a lot more votes than a "plain" monorail submission. Yes, people love classic space monorail, but that won't get the Disney fan vote.

I optimistically believe PF2.0 will be a step up, and not down. I do use the 9V (square battery) converter cable to not have to transport the huge battery box, and I hope they still work with it. I've checked out the update, and while it satisfies the requirement to not be under stress, it just doesn't look pretty. I will check back for more updates, though. Don't get me wrong, though - I already supported the project, and... not all, but most of the monorail projects I've seen. I still think TLG could give us a useful part for curves that wouldn't cost any more than other new parts and could be used for other builds - everybody wins. Yes, you'd be restricted to a particular radius, but you'd still be free to make flex-track any way you want anyway.

Seriously? You're not understanding the argument at all. I'm not objecting to how people talk, I'm objecting to someone calling it "technically correct" to talk that way.

Wow. That's really cool. I work in computer graphics and have implemented L-Systems for generating trees; My master's thesis was also on terrain generation and rendering, so that last part was particularly cool to me. I don't know what other systems are out there, I work in graphics professionally, but Maya has Python scripting; so does Blender, and Unreal Engine now has a Python plug-in (and, of course, that latter two are free).

I don't see pictures of the Pirate coaster on reddit. In any event, I was not a fan of the carousel, but I got the Ferris Wheel, and would love both coasters; it would be interesting if they gave ideas on how to build out the pirate coaster if you had two or three copies of it. Money is tight. Don't know what I'll be able to get. I have the CDX coaster set, but only one of them. All I need is money and space. No problem!

Well, like I mentioned, if someone said that to me, either way, I wouldn't think much about it at all - I understand exactly what they are saying. I guess I deal a lot with non-native English speakers, so I tend to just accept what they are trying to say and move on. However, I would consider both of them "technically" incorrect, because you can't build a castle out of a company (or multiple copies of that company). I see the post above yours and it makes me cringe that dictionaries might add a proper name of a company as a noun, let alone a plural version of it, or a "verb-ified" version of it. And despite my usage of it, the fact they added "verbify" to the dictionary also makes me cringe. EDIT: I found this funny, from Calvin and Hobbes: "Verbing weirds language."

It's cool, I don't mind the discussion - I will accept vacuum as a verb at this point because it's established, but it was established from an incorrect use of the noun. "Googled" is also now considered a verb. If we get back on topic, rules about names and their pluralization hasn't really changed. You don't see "Fords" or "Legos" in a dictionary because they are proper names. There are rules about names. "I have 3 Nintendos" is just not correct. You don't have three companies named Nintendo. You really don't see dictionary changes like that ever become acceptable... you don't see "coke" listed as "soda" in any of the main dictionaries people commonly accept as being authoritative (I didn't see it anywhere, actually). Merriam-Webster does not have "hoover" in it as a verb (although some other dictionaries do, which means it's at least debatable). "I have 3 legos" makes no sense, because even with it's commonly accepted usage, it tells you nothing about what someone has... three lego bricks? Plates? Tiles? Books? Games? "I have 3 Nintendos" also makes no sense; is it 3 switches? NES systems? Genesis systems? Gameboys? When someone says they have 3 Fords, you know what they mean - but it's not "correct" at all, and something like that, as far as I can tell, and despite popular use has never been rolled into the language. EDIT: Yes, I recall now that Genesis is SEGA. Whatever.

So you have a 48x48 tan baseplate? I don't understand the argument about not buying two 32x32 baseplates because you can't get them in tan, so now you want to cut a non-Tan 48x48 baseplate (because, according to BL, it doesn't exist, so if you have one it's worth a small fortune, so please don't cut it), and it's going to be covered anyway.... For the record, it's your LEGO baseplate, and you can do whatever you want to it, and you certainly don't need "permission" from anyone here, but it seems like a long way to go to get the equivalent of two 32x32 baseplates. If you insist on cutting it, I would use a metal edge (I have a metal square - something like that would help make sure your cut is perpendicular to the side), and score it with an exacto or utility knife several times, then go harder until you cut all the way through. You could also use a band-saw, if you had one, especially if you have a jig to align it perfectly. It would be messy, but you could lightly file it after

Again, just because it's accepted (and I don't complain about it, really!) doesn't mean it's the correct use of grammar. "I vacuumed the floor" is actually not really correct; "I vacuum cleaned the floor" is. Just because we got lazy with language doesn't make it "technically correct." It's not, it's merely commonly accepted. So I don't care if you say "I vacuumed the floor," or "I play with legos," or "I googled something," but I do object to someone claiming it's "technically correct." EDIT: at some point, some dictionaries will add those words as verbs, at which point people might claim it's "technically correct," but since when does a publisher get to set the rules for an entire language? In any event, I'm not arguing about things being commonly accepted, I'm arguing about the proper use of grammar (rules I violate all the time, I admit).

Agree with you, Robert8, 100%.

Needs more support on the long straight segments, but it's a great set idea. While I like the technique of making our own "flex track," we know TLG will not go for the way these tracks are made. I've concluded (and said as much in the comments on ideas) that the WHOLE problem of "monorails" could be solved with a single new part - the 2xX curved tile. So imagine a 2x8 tile that makes 1/16th or 1/32nd curve. That's it. One part. It would limit the curves (although you could still use your own), but it would make it "legal." You might need other parts to make it even more interesting, but it would be good enough to make loops.

I like the cop because it's bland and retro - that's the idea. It's the only one in the series I'd really want and, of course, TLG pulled a really #!% move and put only one in a box. Why they do #%@# like that is completely beyond me, and sends a message that they don't really give a #@# about their customers - just keep buying. Sorry for all the foul language, I'm in a mood, but the shoe does certainly fit. WhiteFang, as usual, you're review is absolutely awesome and incredibly useful, but this series is terrible, IMO.

You can pluralize brand names, but it's certainly not "technically correct." So I'm in a "beating a dead horse" mood now, but it IS wrong to say "ten Nintendos." Nintendo is a company, so unless you're referring to 10 companies, all named "Nintendo," then it is, in fact, WRONG. If you have 10 NES Consoles, then you have 10 Nintendo consoles. If you have 10 Ford trucks, then you have 10 Ford trucks - you don't have 10 Fords. While it's generally accepted, because people know what you're talking about, it's not technically correct. There's a reason that companies give their products names - they generally make a lot of products, not a single one of them is supposed to be referred to by the company name alone. So I don't care when people say "Legos, " or "Fords," or "Nintendos" because we all know what people are meaning when they say it, but to claim it's not technically incorrect is technically incorrect.

Your link to the form is invalid. I hear you, though - I've discussed this a lot here. I think they should release bulk packs of bricks in single or like colors. I wish I could order certain bricks in certain colors in bulk rather than trying to find them on BL. I have nothing against BL, but if I need 2000 of something, it's not going to be easy to find, and whatever price reduction you get buying from BL vs S@h is eaten up by multiple shipping. I think the bottom line is they simply don't want to make it easy for your average person to get a lot of what they want - they'd prefer you buy multiple sets with a lot of things you don't need. I even think people will "abuse" the intent of bricks and pieces for TLG to clamp down on it, removing it as an option for a lot of parts.

I actually don't believe TLG is going to give us the quality of Corner Deli, Bike Shop, etc., for some time. The latter sets have been extremely disappointing, IMO. The coaster looks awesome, despite that, but it's not really in the same vein as the buildings. Depending on price, I will probably pick up more than one. The Yacht looks like a good build, it looks like a "real" LEGO yacht... just don't know that I'm personally interested.

Hmm... a couple of points. First, if sets are not popular with kids, I wonder how the Winter Village Train set did. It wasn't necessarily for train fans, so I suspect it maybe sold really well despite the fact it was a train set. That said, I do think there could be demand for additions to that train set, and perhaps it could spark some (if not a lot) extra interest in it as people perhaps try to expand their Christmas displays. I do think that parents might be more interested than kids, but since parents are buying, if there was a less expensive starter set - a small steam engine and a couple of smallish cars, then maybe a set like that would be bought by parents for younger kids. I will rehash the story of my youth, where I was not interested at all in trains, but I loved hotwheels and matchbox cars... my parents gave me an HO set for Christmas one year, my mom painted a 4x8 sheet of plywood with roads and such, my dad mounted the track on it, and I spent a lot of time playing with trains despite the fact that it wasn't even on my radar before then. Kids DO like trains, they just have a lot of other stuff going on these days that they might be more interested in. I don't know why people like trains so much - but they do. In any event, I did disable the spinning Christmas tree because, running on a 9V motor it just looked stupid and dragged the whole thing down. As far as new PF2.0 is concerned, while it's wonderful they are putting receivers in the battery box to save space: 1) I will not pay TLG's premium for a rechargeable battery. $75 (including the power adapter) is highway robbery. So I hope that includes an AAA battery box (where I can use my own rechargeables). 2) I'd bought a few of those converter cables to use 9V batteries for PF, and I will be angry if there is not a separate receiver to buy so that I can continue to use those.

While that's cool and all (and I'm not being sarcastic - looking forward to the ubiquitous availability of these tracks for a number of reasons), wouldn't something like this: or work better? There are several variations of that second one, and it's pretty cheap compared to the first one. I've used it for lighting (sorry, old pic, this has actually been updated with lifelights):

Yes, this IS what I'm saying. I can build a multi-color building like little kids do (not that there's anything wrong with that), but if I want to build GB HQ for some reason - or any IRL building, or even just something my imagination came up with, if I don't have the bricks in the right color then it's prohibitively expensive to do it. Even if it doesn't have to be a certain colors, I'm a grown-up - I don't want a red, blue, and yellow building. Just getting enough parts of the same color, in the sizes that one needs to build something like that, is prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of people out there. Shouts out to the people that built GBHQ and the Fishing Store - those are AWESOME sets, but I don't have the time or money (or creativity) it takes to do something like that on my own. I would never suggest TLG make a set just because I thought it would be cool (except in a thread about sets we would think would be cool), but I might suggest something I think other people would like. That's what Ideas is, after all, isn't it? The community saying "I wish TLG would make this set!" EDIT: As far as "legos" goes, I said it the first time I mentioned it - I don't correct people or get anal-retentive about it, but it bothers me at a place like EB where people should know better. Like "GIF" using a soft G. Why? Because the people that came up with it said so. They made it, they get to decide.

I get that - but the volume of toys sold won't go down, because people that "need" to buy toys will get them from somewhere else and, as I pointed out, everywhere else is either LEGO neutral (like online stores, where shelf space doesn't come into play), or stores like Target or Walmart, where LEGO is over represented compared to TRU. In short, the shelf space LEGO gets in the toy sections of those stores is a much higher percentage of the toy section than it was at TRU. I don't know about Europe, but there are far more Targets and Walmarts than TRU. Those are the kinds of places shoppers will go, and they will see MORE LEGO relative to other toys than they would at TRU. I may be completely wrong, but shoppers gotta shop, and if they are looking for a present for their kid's friend's birthday, where will they go?

Well, no comment on how many engines and cars they have, from what TLG says about trains then I expect the biggest audience is AFOLs anyway. "Kids don't like trains," "trains are boring," "they don't sell well." So why do they keep making them? I'm personally not disappointed in these sets - I get what they are trying to do. I'd just like to see a really nice, well done train every so often - and no creator trains this year, apparently, so that's not going to happen. If they were releasing an Emerald Knight quality train, as well as these other sets, I think you'd see far less complaining. For what it's worth, I just stopped expecting anything I actually want, as far as trains go. With low expectations, I'm seldom disappointed. And yes, I'm really feeling grumpy today.

The short version of "my two cents" is this: the "built it yourself" crowd must have a lot more time and money than me. The longer answer is: I do build things myself, and I want to keep building things myself, but there are certain things that don't fit into the category of things I can build myself, with the bricks I have (or minimal ordering), that TLG couldn't do a lot more cost effectively than I could. LEGO sets aren't perfect - and I've been known to do a lot of modding, and it makes much better use of my time and money. On top of that, some people just aren't good at it - our minds just don't work the same way, so getting official sets and building up around them (like fleshing out a town from some houses and modulars) is what we enjoy doing. There's also no decent access to bulk new parts - just basic bricks of single colors, like gray for castle, or any color for a specific building you might have in mind. Not the after market, and certainly not from TLG. How much does it cost to build something like the Ghost Busters HQ from scratch rather than from a set? I'm not whining about it - just stating it how I see it. Over time I've managed to create quite a large collection of pieces, but still never seem to have quite what I need. I'm not sure where I went wrong. But without going off on a tangent, it's yet another part of the equation - people often need a long time to build up a collection they can just arbitrarily build whatever they want with. Can someone just starting out, with a small collection, not just say "I wish LEGO would make ____?" without getting hassled about it? It's true. "Legos" is a pet peeve of mine, but I rarely say anything except in a context like this one. I also have been skipping a lot of threads, and read EB a lot less frequently because the S/N ratio is far too small, and the unhelpful "so build it yourself" posts in threads about what we'd like to see TLG make don't help. Same thing with the "it's a kid's toy, TLG will never make that!" are a waste, also, because they are often found in, again, threads about sets someone would like to see TLG make, not what we think they actually will make.

First of all, and I'm not trying to sound rude or anything, but I still don't understand what everyone seems so upset about. TLG's profit margins are well north of 20%, the envy of just about every other mass market company out there. Most companies that sell huge volumes are lucky to get 5%. TLG didn't LOSE anything except GROWTH. They still made phenomenal profits! I don't really agree on this position. I'm not a fan of TRU; never was. I get it that a lot of people, when shopping for presents for kids, would hit TRU to buy something - parents for their own kids, and their kid's friends for birthdays, grandparents, aunts and uncles - I get it; they don't know what to get, so they go to TRU and look around. But now they will go elsewhere - Target, WalMart, wherever there will be a large selection of toys and, if anything, LEGO - as a percentage of the toy section - is way more represented at Target and WalMart than at TRU. If that actually matters, then it might end up being better for TLG. The reality, though, is more people will simply buy stuff online - and that was, and is continuing to be the trend, TRU or no TRU. Now, for us customers, it's going to really suck. With less competition, it seems stores will be less likely to give great deals on LEGO. If LEGO cuts production, then expect to see far less on clearance. But if I was worried about TLG "making it" for the long term, as a company, 15 years ago, I'm certainly not anymore - they have a long way down to go before they are in the red again. Your favorite toy company will be around for a very long time.

I can't think of a more perfect example of a free market than Bricklink. There are still places that try to screw you (abnormally high shipping/handling prices on top of cheap base prices), but overall if a price is expensive it's because the buyers say it is (with their wallets).