Aanchir

Darnit, I was looking for a wallpaper to replace the one I currently have (a LEGO City Space background). This one would be perfect if it didn't require me to move all my icons around... Back to the drawing board for me. Speaking of the drawing board, I've built (on LDD) and drawn a modded version of Breez I plan to make once her set is released. Main change I made is shortening the arms and legs, but there are other changes also. Can't wait for that set to be released in the U.S.!

Excellent review. I appreciate the many "comparison pics" with the original subject matter from the Star Wars franchise. It definitely makes it clear how accurate this model is in some ways and inaccurate in a few others (but none that to me seem extremely important).

I've encountered this problem before when I attempted to build the Cafe Corner. It looks like it's just an issue of the part boundaries being programmed incorrectly on LDD. I encourage you to report this in the LDD 4.2.5 bugs topic. Superkalle forwards all bug reports to the LDD team for them to fix in a future update.

I read that the reason Megaupload was under U.S. jurisdiction was that for a time some of its servers were located in Virginia. One might call it a stretch, but to be fair doing something like that is just setting yourself up for the inevitable repercussions. Now, I think if anything this shows that current U.S. copyright law is more than sufficient for ensuring that copyrights are protected on our shores. I feel SOPA is overreaching legislation that, while based on the honorable goal of protecting intellectual property, causes more damage than it heals. And some of this just seems like sloppy legislation, like how search engines like Google could potentially be prosecuted against just for not actively limiting users' access to sites that host pirated material. It's not the intent of the legislation that bothers me, it's the collateral damage. I don't know much about PIPA but from what I've heard it's better-written than SOPA in this regard. It may very easily have problems of its own, but many of the websites I use tend to view it as a more livable alternative to SOPA. I'll keep an eye out for if the sites I trust start to see cause for alarm in that piece of legislation.

I personally think the Fantasy Era troll looks more like LEGO than the HP one. Its face decoration is more like a regular minifigure face (minifigures shouldn't have noses...), its body and legs are angular like a minifigure or typical LEGO animal rather than overly rounded, and of course it has way more posability and fewer awkward points where the gaps between pre-assembled sections show (like the Harry Potter troll's chest and ankles). The textile "clothing" of the Harry Potter troll was also awkward and out-of-place next to ordinary minifigures with simple printed or molded clothes. The Fantasy Era troll also has far more parts and connection points, making it more versatile. The only thing that I think makes the Harry Potter troll any more like regular LEGO than the Fantasy Era troll is its cylindrical head and lack of fingers. Obviously in some respects it may have been limited because it was tied to a license, but overall I think design standards in general improved a lot between it and Fantasy-Era Castle, and if the Harry Potter set featuring the troll were released for the first time today I'm sure many aspects of its design would be a lot closer to the quality of the Fantasy-Era troll and it would be made to fit in with minifigures a lot better.

Not sure, but I'm certain a lot of VIPs are parents of kids. Any parent who does a lot of online or in-store LEGO shopping would have as much reason to take advantage of the VIP program as an AFOL buying sets for themselves. My dad's a VIP, although he's both an AFOL and a parent of three LEGO fans.

Here you go. It's not exactly the same as the official set that requires this build, but the area having problems is. The only changes are in the legs and one of the hands.

The middle brown is Reddish Brown, which is indeed the color used in the Cafe Corner. The one on the left is Dark Brown, which was introduced in LEGO's Indiana Jones theme, while the one on the right is Dark Orange, which is used extensively in the upcoming Town Hall set in the modular series. A good way to check what color parts should be on LDD is to use the LEGO Customer Service site's replacement parts server, located here. Just enter your age and select an option for why you need a replacement (unless you actually plan on ordering replacements it doesn't matter what you select). Then enter the set number for the set you want to check on a color from, and click on a part from the set in that color. A pop-up window will come up with details like the Design ID, element ID, and color name. The replacement parts server does have a flaw, which is that it doesn't have pictures for every part, and that it doesn't show parts other than those it has pictures for when you enter a set number. But there's another way to view part information from TLG's database through this server. Just go to the URL of one of those pop-up windows (they make it difficult to copy and paste, so here's a link for you to use) and replace the seven-digit number in the URL with the six- or seven-digit Element ID of any part you want to look up. In all sets from 2006 or later, the Element IDs for all parts included can be found in the back of the sets' instruction booklets. Hope this helps.

Thanks so much! I've been waiting for a Eurobricks review of this set for a while! It's one of the sets I greatly anticipate from next year. While the ship is brilliant, I think it has some flaws. For instance, although it acts as the Ninja's home base in the TV show, it is very small in the set and has no cabins or other "interior" space. The deck also seems a bit cluttered. I think I would have liked it more if it were the same scale as a full-size LEGO pirate ship, but of course that would have jacked up the price considerably, and people already complain that it has an unreasonable price-per-piece. The little shrine in this set is nice, much like the smaller and simpler snake shrines in other sets this year. The coolness of these shrines makes me kind of disappointed that there are far fewer architectural-based sets in 2012 than there were in 2011. 2011 at least had more detail on most of the "arena" sets like Skeleton Bowling. While the arena sets in 2012 have an advantage in that their simple Technic-based designs are intercompatible (you no longer have to buy multiples of the same set and connect them together for a full play experience), they are not nearly as pretty as the more complex ones in 2011. The figs are generally nice. Although the "Kendo" figs are pretty simple and mostly identical they still are a neat concept. Skales and Slithraa look very nice-- I have to say the Hypnobrai (blue and gray snakemen) are perhaps some of the most stylish of the Serpentine figures. The new Sensei Wu is nice, not that we necessarily needed one after having two brilliant-looking designs in 2011. Lord Garmadon's new fig is a mixed bag. In some ways, it looks excellent. In others, though, it's lacking. For instance, his helmet is now Titanium Metallic rather than Silver Metallic, which has less contrast with his body, and furthermore the new samurai helmet design is slightly less imposing than the old one. The design of the new "additional arms" piece doesn't bother me too much besides that it has a grooved texture. If it were smoother, and perhaps even printed, I feel it would suit Lord Garmadon's design better, plus be more versatile. Overall none of the problems I see with this set strike me as reasons not to get it. It certainly suits Sensei Wu's character with its very traditional styling that disguises deeper mechanical complexity.

As far as I can tell, those behind the petition seem to mainly take issue with LEGO's heavy marketing of the theme as "LEGO for girls". And to be fair, I don't like this marketing either, as it makes it all the more awkward for me to get a set should I want one. But I think they're misinterpreting the nature of this. TLG isn't trying to advertise it as the only theme for girls, but rather as the only theme that's only for girls. That is to say, there are plenty of other themes that girls can enjoy, but this is the only one specially-designed to cater to girls' interests. It should be obvious, looking at some of the most "stereotypically girly" content in the sets, that a boy would usually avoid those sets like the plague. Hence the input of boys was probably pretty much ignored in the designing of this theme. And that's way different from a lot of other themes which probably have both boys and girls on their focus groups. Content that would have been vetoed in either a boy-oriented or gender-neutral theme can end up in Friends sets, which I'm sure will do a lot to make girls feel more comfortable with the theme's offerings. Girls can still enjoy themes that are "for boys and girls". There's nothing stating "LEGO for boys" on the Ninjago or LEGO City websites. And the "For Girls" section of LEGOshop.com still has lots of sets besides LEGO Friends (including LEGO Architecture, most D2C sets, and most licensed themes, and almost all Duplo and basic brick sets). The point of the "LEGO for girls" marketing is to convince parents that yes, you CAN get building toys for your daughter, and to convince girls worried about peer pressure and gender identity that yes, these toys ARE intended for you! And this is still necessary in this day and age: one of my best friends from college spent a decent amount of time talking about how her parents wouldn't get her LEGO sets as a child even though she wanted them. Now, if Friends were all TLG was doing to spread this message that LEGO was OK for girls, then I'd probably take issue, but the slight evening of gender ratios in LEGO City, the new "LEGO Club Girls" magazine, and other less obvious measures help to convince me that TLG is putting a conscious effort to make sure they're not measuring the success of LEGO Friends in a vacuum. Instead, they're putting forth every effort to determine which design and marketing choices in the Friends theme they can expand to other parts of their product line, which are only viable in a girls-only theme, and which are simply unnecessary.

What Cirkit means is that he had a transparent yellow Hero Core, so a more vibrant Hero Core on this model would improve it. I kind of agree. This model is super-excellent, but could use a splash more color, at least on the Hero Core to make it look nice and glowy.

TLG's equivalent to Medium Dark Flesh is 312 Medium Nougat. Peeron's chart is inaccurate regarding this and a number of other brown/orange/flesh colors. Bricklink doesn't have any true equivalent to Peeron's DkNougat, but it seems to be the same as TLG's 128 Dark Nougat. The Dark Nougat parts I know of are on Bricklink mislabeled either as Dark Orange or Earth Orange. Examples of parts in Dark Nougat include Vernon Dursley's hair in the 2002 set "4728 Escape from Privet Drive" and the flute in the 2001 set "4706 Forbidden Corridor". Just to help people with brown colors that Peeron mislabels in its color chart: BL's Brown / Peeron's OldBrown = TLG's 25 Earth Orange BL's Dark Flesh / Peeron's DkFlesh = TLG's 217 Brown BL's Medium Dark Flesh / Peeron's MdDkFlesh = TLG's 312 Medium Nougat BL's Earth Orange/Peeron's EarthOrange = TLG's 12 Light Orange Brown If you want to look up color equivalents, I'd recommend the resources on Isodomos.com, which are less complete but more accurate than Peeron's list at the time being.

Wait, are you asking about having blue and red GITD parts? That would be a little difficult. LEGO has rarely, if ever, had colored glow-in-the-dark parts; the closest I'm familiar with are various GITD blue BIONICLE parts that were really just parts in Transparent Blue blended with Phosphorescent Green (the glow-in-the-dark color introduced in 2006, which is still the current glow-in-the-dark color if I'm not mistaken). And while they were blue normally, like any other glow-in-the-dark color LEGO has produced they glowed green, albeit with a slight bluish tint. I'm not sure how well blended (co-injected) colors would work with something as small as a lightsaber blade anyway. And are there even glow-in-the-dark red and blue compounds that can be effectively and safely used in toy production? I don't often see any glowing colors other than green on toy store shelves. I'm sure if TLG could find a way to move past these obstacles they'd definitely take interest in including more colors of glow-in-the-dark parts in sets.

Some of that concept art (one picture of each enemy creature) was featured in one issue of LEGO Club Magazine, but it's neat seeing the creatures from more angles. The Bone Vulture is possibly my favorite: its head and beak seem based on a certain BIONICLE minifigure head (Link) flipped around backwards, although that head piece doesn't fit too snugly on a minifigure skeleton torso since the BIONICLE minifigure heads only have a one-stud-deep anti-stud and then a receptacle for a 3.2mm bar. So much creativity went into LEGO Universe... I never played the game and don't think I'd enjoy it enough for it to be worthwhile for me, but it's still a shame to see it go. I wonder if there will at any point be another Ninjago video game. LEGO Battles: Ninjago was pretty excellent, although its graphics are a bit lacking like its predecessor LEGO Battles. A game in full 3-D would be cool, although one wonders what it would cover: just one year of story like LEGO Battles: Ninjago, or perhaps a larger adventure summarizing multiple stories like many of the licensed LEGO games?

I have found an apparent error with 90626 BEAM TORSO 7X9 BALL Ø10.2. The foot piece 90661 BASE 3X7X3 W. BALL CUP Ø10.2 cannot be attached to it by a pair of friction pins as is required in the instructions of set 6202 Rocka. The same foot piece can attach to the geometrically-similar piece 90625 BEAM TORSO 9X9 BALL Ø10.2 without any problem, leading me to believe the problem is with the torso piece and not with the foot piece. Additionally, I found a sort of an error with part 72039 CORRUGATED PIPE 144MM. This part is able to flex, which is great, but it cannot flex at a sharp enough angle to function correctly in the construction of set 6293 Furno. The tubes should connect all the way to the blue friction pins, but they can't do so because it would require them to bend at a sharper angle than is currently possible. Also, the following parts should be able to be dual-colored: 32558 VOODOO FLAME* 41671 BION. HEAD, TOP 53562 SHELL WITH 3 CLAWS 5X8X2 57557 SHELL 1 4X5X3 2007 - CO. INJ.* 57558 SHELL 2 (3X5X3) 2007* 61804 Foot/claw 3x9x3, 08 co-inject 64297 WEAPON/FLAME 2009 85582 BALL Ø 16.5 WITH STUDS* Those with asterisks are particularly important because in the basic LDD mode, the parts appear in the colors they would only have if co-injected (that is to say, they seem to be intended to be multicolored but can't be).

Regarding the collision error, are you using the classic 1x2 plate with bar 4623, or the newer version 88072? The two versions have significantly different dimensions-- the classic version has 3.2 mm. of space between the plate itself and the vertical shaft, while the newer version has only 2.4 mm.-- not enough for the 1x4 tile to slide between the back wall of the jail cell and the vertical shaft. The reason the part was redesigned was probably to allow it to be used with parts like 30237 BRICK 1X2 WITH HORIZONTAL HOLDER and have exactly 1 module of space between the walls of the two parts (so they could be lined up perfectly on a 2x3 plate). But this means a lot of functions of the older version cannot be used with the newer version.

Good idea. I will do that very soon. Although from what I have seen there are unfortunately no new colors in the latest version of LDD. I was hoping at least for the new Olive Green color from the Dino theme.

Those LEGO Universe concepts are awesome! Somehow, they seem even zanier than the actual Ninjago theme-- but then again, I guess LEGO Universe, with its amorphous mixing of traditional LEGO themes into new and imaginative ideas, is almost zanier by default! Its a shame LEGO Universe proved unsuccessful, as this shows that it continued to have a lot of potential. Hopefully TLG will sometime find another more successful outlet for those same sorts of ideas. I'm not sure how well these particular armor concepts would work in the actual Ninjago theme, but that doesn't make them any less brilliant.

Even more easily, just click View>New Themes>LDD Extended in the top toolbars. Then click View>New Themes>LDD to go back if you should so choose!

Thanks so much! I'd seen other techniques before but a video certainly makes me more confident. One question though: if you separate them and reconnect them, do they become looser? I wouldn't want to do this if I was damaging the pieces, unless I were absolutely certain I wanted to use the eye or head pieces for something different.

IMO all minifigures should have black eyes unless they are non-human or somehow magically influenced. I can tolerate Lord Garmadon from Ninjago having red eyes, or trolls and skeletons from Fantasy-Era Castle having glowy red eyes, or the Collectible Minifigures werewolf and minotaur having yellow eyes, but minifigures with colored eyes just don't sit well with me. The fig deskp showed above is a good example of why, but if you prefer an older example, the dead-looking grey eyes of the Mission Deep Sea version of Dash and Cam's alien-looking green eyes show how bad an idea colored eyes for minifigures can be. Exhibit D is Madame Hooch from Harry Potter, who is a wee bit terrifying with her solid yellow, pupil-less eyes.

This mostly applies with older parts, and more recent parts (that is, most parts from within the last decade or perhaps some even earlier) have abandoned this pattern. I notice a lot of people complaining that Extended Mode lacks a lot of decorations, but this has been a problem LDD has had for several versions. The reason for the problem is that the part-to-decoration relationships the decoration tool uses are programmed individually, and the decoration tool has not had a significant update in a long, long time. Even the April 2011 version of LDD had decorated Hero Factory shells that could be accessed through DesignByMe mode but not through LDD Extended mode. This is something I hope a future version will amend, even though it might require changing the decoration interface since even now the many minifig face decorations already available just barely fit on my screen (and on my younger brother's smaller netbook screen the problem is even more glaring, with lots of decorations cut off). Perhaps a revised decoration tool could make the decorated parts show up on the left-hand side of the screen, which is now unused in LDD and LDDE modes.

The truck is indeed 37 Bright Green! It's been mentioned in a couple reviews. It's so nice to see that color being used more often nowadays.

I'd like to report an error with part 98564 SHOOTER ARM-2012. This part is supposed to have only one connection point (an axle hole). Instead, it has two (an axle hole and a pin hole), much like its earlier counterpart 64275 SHOOTER ARM 8 M. 09. I imagine the reason for this problem is that the part represents an earlier prototype of the piece. Also, on a somewhat odd note, one of the new pieces is 95109 LIPSTICK, CORE. This piece is, in real life, fused with a handle piece, and I don't believe in real life they can be separated. Here is a picture showing the full lipstick pieces and how they are fused.

What alternative would you have preferred, in this case? After all, the deadline for DesignByMe closing probably wasn't chosen arbitrarily. DesignByMe is more than computer data; it's a physical service that TLG was providing. And they couldn't exactly keep providing it for longer to allow more time for the LDD team to program a replacement when the service was costing them money. Furthermore, keep in mind some people might like the new basic mode. I've encountered a lot of people who have difficulty working in LDD Extended mode but still want a wider variety of parts and colors to build with. So the new LDD could easily fulfill that requirement. It's not like TLG ever made any promises about DesignByMe's replacement having only purchasable bricks, and I'm sure there are many people who neither expect it to or care if it doesn't. Personally, I too would prefer if in the future the new LDD were adjusted to have only parts that appeared in sets. After all, many of the parts are already ones that appeared in sets, and many of those that don't appear in sets could quite genuinely be mistakes-- as Superkalle points out, they could be parts that were produced in test runs and never released, or produced for things like LEGOLAND parks (and as I've seen from browsing service.LEGO.com, TLG's database seems to make little distinction between parts produced for sets and unreleased parts). Having mostly parts that appear in sets but then an assortment of parts that never appeared in sets, like the various transparent skeleton parts, could lead to unnecessary confusion. But it's not as though the LDD team is taking a massive gamble with the satisfaction of its users by testing to see if this new basic mode will be what it takes to get users excited about LDD. In fact, it looks to me like this new, colorful mode of LDD could better meet the expectations of a new user of the program, plus help users understand TLG's color palette (which is of course something I'd support ).