Aanchir

Nah, you actually can't do that with physical bricks using either of those parts. In the case of 59443 it's possible there was an earlier version of the mold with the same part number that would allow this (I don't know about this for sure), but 93571 has never allowed this.

I think a big reason for the hotel rooms being themed like they are is because they're meant to tie in with some of the park's major theme areas: Pirate Shores, Castle Hill, and the Land of Adventure. Thus a Friends room would not really achieve the same goal unless a LEGO Friends section of the park were introduced. As for why no LEGO City room is included, perhaps they wanted the rooms to feel more exotic on the whole, and since LEGO City is commonly regarded as TLG's "real life" theme, they were afraid kids might be bored with that kind of theme. It doesn't help that LEGO City is incredibly diverse in its subject matter compared to these other themes, so it would be hard to emulate all the things that make LEGO City distinctive without the decor becoming disjointed. Finally, let's not forget that kids going to an amusement park or hotel often want something different than those buying a toy. While LEGO Friends might be some girls' favorite theme, again, it doesn't necessarily have the same exotic and whimsical appeal as many of the other themes represented in the park and hotel. A big part of theme parks' appeal comes from escapism, so a kid might not be seeking something comfortable and familiar. Overall, what I've seen of the hotel looks like it offers a very fun experience. I don't know if I'd get as much out of the experience today as I would have as a kid, but it's sure to make kids' time at the park that much more magical for them.

I mostly agree with this. I do have to concede that digital MOCs and physical MOCs are two different types of MOCing that can't always be judged according to the same terms. But I feel like both should be considered MOCs because they are original creations using LEGO components, whether physical or virtual. Certainly, there is a certain amount of freedom that digital MOCing can afford a builder, but likewise there are freedoms that physical bricks can be used to realize. Take, for instance, your example of MOCs for which the physical bricks might not be available in the right colors. This is generally a characteristic of digital MOCs, but it's just as possible in physical MOCs with a high-quality coat of paint (something which even the Master Builders use in MOCs of prototype sets), Likewise, depending on your MOC software, custom decorations can be just as possible as they would be with a set of custom-printed stickers or waterslide decals. Sometimes a digital MOC might take advantage of connections and collisions that would not be possible in real life. But is this really so different from cutting and gluing parts, as I see on some heavily-customized BIONICLE MOCs? So it sort of gets back to that "what is purist?" discussion that took place recently. No matter what the medium, different MOCs will be built with different design constraints and it's entirely up to an individual's discretion whether one set of constraints (like "purism", studless building, or what-have-you) is superior to another.

Yes, but that one can't be mounted on a central axle-- it's an airplane wheel for mounting beneath a model with parts like this and this. It is also used for older LEGO motorcycles. That red wheel and black plate assembly is permanent (or at least, not designed to be separated). The red wheels are connected by a metal axle which goes through a hole in either side of the black plate.

With Ninjago, they did have at least one ride at various LEGOLAND parks as well as a temporary Ninjago miniland in Germany (which I think is pretty significant-- it's certainly a very big investment for a temporary exhibit, and it's the only themed miniland other than the Star Wars ones). They just didn't go that one additional step and dedicate a new park section to the theme. Again, sometimes it's risky to wait until a theme has been "proven successful" to do something like this, because normally by that point it's on the wane. Certainly Ninjago's success wasn't expected to stay as strong throughout 2012 as it did, hence why the decision to continue the story into 2014 came so late. Now, the press release on the LEGOLAND Florida set says that the new expansion is inspired by the positive reaction Chima has had with kids. Whether that's just preemptive PR talk based on focus group testing and the like or solid facts based on actual sales and viewership numbers isn't totally clear, but it's clear that they have some reason to anticipate Chima being a hit, and they want to be ready to take advantage of that rather than waiting until the theme hits its peak and thus missing their biggest opportunity to promote and profit from the theme. Additionally, it might just be that the time wasn't right for a Ninjago theme park expansion. LEGOLAND Florida is well-suited to expansions like this because it's so new, but it didn't open until October 2011, and in 2012 their biggest park development project was the addition of a water park. So it's quite possible they simply didn't have the time or resources at that time to develop a theme-specific expansion. Or alternatively, perhaps they wanted a bit longer to gauge how interested people were in the park and its new expansions before doing something this groundbreaking. And finally, Ninjago did have one thing Chima doesn't have: a promotional truck tour. This is not something that was new to Ninjago by any means (BIONICLE had several, and LEGO Games also had some to tie in with its launch), but it's possible that with this promotional campaign aimed at bringing the Ninjago experience directly to kids around the globe, they didn't see any need for a permanent or semi-permanent Ninjago attraction in its debut year.

That's not "putting all their eggs in one basket"; it's just the same strategy they pretty much always have with "big bang" themes. Sure, they're doing things they've never done before with Chima, but they did with Ninjago as well and that turned out well. And in fact, it's probably safer to try new marketing strategies with a new theme than with an older one because the first year is when the hype for the theme will generally be at its peak. Incidentally, here's the map for the "World of Chima". It's one ride (perhaps even replacing one that was going to get retired anyway), a 4D movie, and a "Speedorz Arena" (in other words, I'm thinking some play tables with organized events). Nothing extravagant, and it helps that the money TLG is "throwing at" this attraction isn't all their own-- Cartoon Network's sponsorship relieves some of the burden. When Chima loses popularity, then it will be no huge expense to convert the ride into a ride for another theme, change some of the decor, and play a different film in the 4D theater. This is standard operating procedure for co-promotions at theme parks. Sometimes a name change and a new paint job is enough to tie a ride to a newer, trendier franchise.

Generally a lot of my building is done with one or more of my siblings, so I've come up with a number of elaborate techniques for dividing up steps. We alternate steps for the most part. If there is a callout for "2x", "3x", etc, we tend to divide those between us regardless of whose steps they are on (but any remainder goes to the person whose step it actually is). Sub-steps are considered a "part" of a builder's main step if they lack individual piece callouts. If they have piece callouts then they are treated as individual steps, but the person whose step it starts on builds the first sub-step in the sequence, and after the last sub-step when regular step numbering resumes, that builder gets to attach the resulting subsection. "Trades" can be permitted if certain interesting pieces or builds only tend to fall on one builder's step: so, if a set has two fancy windscreens on my step, I might let my brother attach one of them, and then he'll let me attach one of his more interesting parts on a later step of his. Overall, it's become a bit of an elaborate routine, and I imagine I'd struggle a great deal building a set with someone I haven't been building with all my life! When building Hero Factory sets or other small/simple sets, I tend to build on my own, and build in order according to the instructions. But when rebuilding a set I've taken apart I might just use my memory or pictures of the set instead of the instructions. Generally it's only building a set for the first time that has an elaborate routine attached to it in my experience.

I think he's talking about the dragon on the bad guy heraldry, not the actual dragon figure. And it is a bit of an understandable position, since the dragon emblem is fairly stylized and not really much like what a dragon would likely look like in real medieval heraldry, nor quite like any physical LEGO dragon. But I personally happen to like both the dragon and lion icons from this new iteration of LEGO Castle, even if they're a bit of a departure from both traditional LEGO heraldry and real-world heraldic icons.

Oh my gosh, the Grandpa's bio is glorious: Also I love how they snuck a "thundering typhoons" into the Sea Captain's bio! Props to Daniel Lipkowitz (assuming he's still the one responsible for the site bios) for doing such a great job!

The reason for the change in CMFs is that they introduced a new, 30-figure box around the time of Series 9, and wanted the distribution to be the same between the two box sizes. Thus, there's no way there could be an odd number of complete sets in a 60-figure box. And since four sets of 16 couldn't fit in a box of 60, instead it's pushed down to two. The distribution could still be evened out a bit more, in that currently the number of figs per box ranges from two to six, when there could be just a range of two to four. But there are various reasons TLG might justify keeping distribution uneven.

I think it's just random variability in Warm Gold pieces. Variations like this aren't uncommon, though it's not too often there's such a striking difference between two of the same piece from the same year. I have to say I prefer the one on the left, since the mask seems to match the rest of the costume a bit better.

I don't think either of those "problems" really detracts from Dragon Bolt at all. The red button stands out, but could easily be interpreted as a Legend-of-Zelda-style weak point that you have to hit for massive damage. Meanwhile, I don't have a problem with exposed Technic when it's used tastefully, which on Dragon Bolt I feel it is. Rather than replacing the HF building system, it's supplementing it, providing a level of functionality that would be awkward if his wings were based solely on the HF building system. Just as with Bruizer's arm-swinging function, it's important to Dragon Bolt's function that his wings stay more or less rigid as they flap, and I don't see how covering up the Technic elements would drastically improve the model.

Well in that case that suggests that for some reason or another, a production run of one hairpiece got more dye than a production run of the other, or something to that effect. Since dye is added during molding and all CMFs are molded in one plant over a (comparatively) shorter span of time than regular sets, it's not unbelievable that this sort of thing could happen across-the-board for those particular hairpieces. Does make me wonder whether this was within the normal tolerances for color variability or whether they were pressed to allow sub-standard parts through to production, though. If it's the latter, then it's quite disappointing, since the CMFs have improved so much in quality since the wildly varying quality of Series 1 and 2. Is one variety more translucent than the other? I know it's not totally a fair comparison, since the parts have different thicknesses and surface finishes, but if one variety is in fact more translucent then that would strongly suggest a batch of parts that didn't get enough dye.

Technically, if LDD is anything to go by, we do have a "new" shark soon to appear in sets: design ID 14518. It has molded gills, beveled corners on its body, more connection points on the underside and more rounded fins, but is otherwise identical to the old shark 2547 in terms of size and shape. A couple years back we also had a new shark upper jaw introduced 87587, which is more rounded than the classic "pointy" shark jaw 2548. As for why the shark from Agents/Pirates isn't used more often, I suppose it's considered either too costly or unrealistically large for a theme based on the real world. Alternatively, perhaps TLG worries that a shark that big in a theme based on real life (often with civilians) might seem scary for kids. It's a bit of a shame. I prefer that shark greatly just by virtue of it having printed eyes, and even if the angry eyes weren't to everyone's liking, a new eye print would not be impossible to accomplish.

Yes, they are the same Cool Yellow. If they are different, it is not intentional, since a color keeping the same name and number means the TARGET color (i.e. the color that the actual color is supposed to be within a certain predefined margin of) has stayed the same. And unless TLG has been knowingly putting out parts that don't meet their own quality specifications, then chances are the color is still within that margin, even if there is a perceivable difference. Colors do get reformulated occasionally for various reasons (safety standards, consistency, etc.), but as long as they remain within those predefined margins of the target color, then they are the same color in TLG's terms. And I see no reason to insist otherwise when the differences are slight and by some accounts sound like normal variability within the color, not an across-the-board change.

I can definitely say one thing for sure: The dialogue in all the HF episodes I've seen is far beyond most of the stilted dialogue in the first three episodes of the Legends of Chima TV show. Yeesh. While the humor in that can be truly enjoyable, unlike some of the jokes in the HF TV show that just create confusion, the majority of the dialogue in that just states the obvious, often in short, choppy lines. Since that series is going to be a full season rather than just a single episode each year, I'm hoping that offers some room for improvement, but I was generally disappointed watching those first three episodes last night. Still need to see the Brain Attack episode... I'm holding out for at least slightly higher quality than the 360p we've got currently. On a side note, LDD updated again, mostly just with bug fixes but also with a handful of new minifigure parts. Hero Factory parts make up a number of the bug fixes. The geometries of the 2013 visor and helmets have been improved so that the visors can now close more realistically, and the connectivity for XT4's torso beam, the Brain Attack torso shell, and the 3M Technic beam with central ball joint have all been corrected.

Agreed on all points. However, something I observed myself is that M2Film's animation style (giving characters a sort of jumpy stop-motion quality to their movements) and the very slapstick nature of the action suggest this isn't a series that's meant to be taken all that seriously. The real question is, does this work for a series with such a dense level of invented mythology as Legends of Chima? It feels somewhat disjointed to me — without taking the show seriously, it's hard to properly digest and mentally apply the mechanics and history of the invented universe to future episodes. The deliberately comedic aspects of the series, like Gorzan's subplot in the third episode or any scene with Plomar, are largely enjoyable. But the stilted dialogue makes it very difficult for me as an adult to enjoy the series, and I think a lot of kids would also have a hard time enjoying the show.

Where did you obtain this piece? My guess is it's just a miscolored Bright Blue (classic blue) brick. However, it is a very big difference to have happened during the production process. I once obtained some used parts in a yard sale (or as a lot online; I forget; my dad made the purchase). Among them were some parts from 8537, and it looked like they had been subjected to extreme heat. Some of the axles were melted together with other parts/melted out of shape, and many of the Bright Yellowish Green and Bright Orange were faded at least as much as this blue brick is (if it was in fact originally a Bright Blue brick). I'm not sure how the parts from this lot became discolored-- whether it was overexposure to a light source, being washed in too high a temperature of water, sanitized with household chemicals like bleach, or what-have-you. But in any event if this brick was bought used it could be discolored for similar reasons.

Hmmm, I'm not sure. Here's a question: have you tried melting the same part designs in both Warm Gold (pearl gold) and non-metallic colors? If a warm gold treasure chest doesn't melt, then it may be made of another plastic like polycarbonate (the type of plastic used for transparent parts and some non-transparent parts like lightsaber blades). But that doesn't say anything about the color if ALL treasure chests fail to melt in acetone. It could even be that there's something in the dye that reacts with the acetone and prevents the plastic itself from reacting with the acetone, but I'd say this is unlikely since if the dye were reactive enough to neutralize a pool of acetone then it would not likely meet safety standards. Incidentally, Warm Gold cheese slopes are Design ID #54200, Roof Tile 1X1X2/3, ABS. Polycarbonate cheese slopes, including transparent colors and some early cheese slopes in opaque colors, are the earlier Design ID #50746, Roof Tile 1 X 1 X 2/3. This at least suggests that SOME Warm Gold parts are regular ABS, or at least a part that is comparable from a production standpoint.

I think "purist" shouldn't be seen as better or worse than more complex customization, but it's still a very valid way of identifying a specific self-imposed design challenge. And identifying custom minifigures as "purist" is still a very important thing for those who prefer that sort of customizing, because it precludes suggestions like "why didn't you just paint X hairpiece instead" or "why didn't you just use this or that custom brand/clone brand piece" which go against the customizer's design intent. In general, I think any MOC that uses only un-modified LEGO-brand products can be considered purist. The only more debateable techniques are those which TLG endorses in very specific circumstances, such as the cutting of string and Technic flex cable. I've seen various arguments for why cutting flex cable is/isn't purist, and in general I'd be willing to consider it purist as long as the flex cable is cut in a way that it remains a closed tube. Things like custom sails are not something I'd consider purist, but at the same time, the same ship can be considered purist if the sails are ignored, and can be judged according to those terms.

Separate parts by function. Trash cans, mailboxes, cabinets, crates, and barrels, for instance, could all go together in a bin for "assorted minifigure containers". Castle walls could go together with BURPs and other "special panels", and so on and so forth. Depending on how much you want your parts sorted out, once you've broken up this collection of "unusual parts" to a certain extent you can always just reserve one bin for parts that can't really be categorized. This is roughly the system I've always used for "oversized parts" that can't fit in plastic drawers, though over time parts began to simply be put wherever they fit, making it a lot less systematic! Your solution of just separating unusual parts into "large" and "small" could definitely be effective as well for a smaller collection, as long as you can remember where you drew the line!

All Cool Yellow (Bricklink's Bright Light Yellow) CMF hair pieces presumably have the same target color, since the name and number for the color have not changed. But I wouldn't be surprised if the issue was random variance. Alternatively, perhaps the Chinese manufacturing plant where the CMFs are produced switched their dye supplier at some point? I'm not sure how likely that is, but since the more extreme variations in regular Bright Yellow (Bricklink's Yellow) have been explained as a consequence of different dye suppliers, a similar factor could be involved here (but with the dye supplier varying by time of production rather than geographically). Luna Lovegood and other non-Chinese-made figures would naturally have a different dye supplier, and as such, differences in their hair colors is a little bit less surprising than differences within the CMF line.

Here's an odd bug I discovered: Color 129 Tr. Bluish Violet (Glitter) no longer renders correctly, at least not with maximum graphic settings. The likely reason for this is that in Assets.lif, the material type has been changed from "shinyPlastic" to "glitter". Technically a glittery material would be more accurate if it would actually render, but instead bricks in this material render the same as bricks with Material IDs not programmed into the software.

It could have something to do with different licensees having access to different distribution channels, meaning that by getting an assortment of licensees they can have a wider range of stores carry their licensed products. With that said, I do agree that a more consistent system would be much appreciated. But of course no matter what TLG settled on there would be some people disappointed because their preferred system didn't get the gig. For instance, the IRIS storage containers are some very useful ones as far as design is concerned, but some people could quite justifiably prefer the Plast Team creative storage line for its sheer novelty. As it is, I don't think any one storage system has had overwhelming success, so having multiple licensors handling things independent could be the corporate equivalent of throwing darts at a wall and seeing where they stick.

Yeah, it kind of caught me by surprise in this latest update. There have always been a couple decorations in LDD that looked in thumbnail form like just flat fields of color, which I always assumed were glitches. In this latest update there were a lot more of them, and if it weren't for the comprehensiveness of the CMF decorations and decoration surfaces in the latest update I might still not have realized that they were proper decorations, meant to cover an entire decoration surface in a single color. Because of the way LDD treats most decoration surfaces (they generally have corresponding "color surfaces" in the LXFML, even if you can't color these surfaces separately with the paint bucket tool) in most cases you can choose whether to express these painted areas of the parts as decorations or as separate color areas. Separately coloring them with the paint bucket tool is probably preferable in most applications, since the decorations can leave unwanted seams at odd areas, do not get shaded with the rest of a part, and cannot be edited in-program. Now, LDD is also somewhat inconsistent in terms of what color areas are treated as decorations and what are treated as color areas, even with the CMF parts. In the latest update it seems there was an effort to omit these kinds of flat-field decorations for some series and not for others-- in the case of Series 7, there are several of them, whereas other series have far fewer and seem to prefer the paint bucket for any flat-color painted areas of the original part (like the blue streak, black hair, and black feather tips of the Tribal Chief headdress versus the red lines and gold buttons on the same part). But I'd hardly consider this a bug-- as long as there's SOME way to color parts correctly, then I hardly care whether LDD offers one option (paint bucket) or two (paint bucket/decoration).