L@go

Yes, it's a very nice little set and it's pretty easy to transform into minifig scale because it's so square. I see a couple of posters already linked to my attempt at this - it's a bit different than the original set in that it's a corner building, but apart from that I was definitely quite heavily inspired by 3300003. Good luck with your project - make sure to post some pictures when you're done!

The strange thing is that I most certainly am admin on that PC. But it still tells me I "need permission" for certain actions, after which I can immediately give myself permission. Very annoying and utterly unnecessary. I don't know, maybe it's Windows 8.

And bingo. I changed the security permissions on the folder so that all users now can modify elements in it - that won't be a problem since I'm the only user. I saved a new file in MLCad - and there it was, in the MODELS folder, even when viewed in Windows Explorer. Just as it should be. Thanks a lot, C3POwen - I never would have managed to figure that out by myself. EDIT: I also just found, like you said, the original files in the VirtualStore folder. You, Sir, are a genius :D

Thanks for the replies, guys! I'll have another look into it when I get back from work tonight, but I think C3POwen might be onto something here. The path is indeed C:\Program Files (x86)\Ldraw. That is true, there is indeed a MODELS folder there, but that is not where MLCad stores the files I build - that one contains only pre-built official sets that came with the program.

Hi there! I don't venture much into this part of the forum - in fact I think it's the first time I've been here. But I've run into a problem with MLCad that I can't figure out, and after having done some searching on Google and EB I can't find any topics about it either. So I thought I'd ask to see if anybody had encountered it before. I've just bought a new stationary computer after nine years (don't ask). I've used LDraw/MLCad extensively over the past eight years or so, so I dare say I have a reasonable amount of experience with the program. Here's the bug: When installing LDraw/MLCad on it, I added a MODELS folder to the LDraw folder - there was one on my old computer that I didn't put there, so I assume it was put there originally by the installer waaaay back when. Problem is, when I open files from that folder (going through the process of automatically substituting the older files with new versions, like the cheese slope - that's a neat function) and then save them, they don't save to that folder. Instead, they seem to go into another folder which is supposed to be at the exact same location - but when I try to find it using Windows Explorer it's just not there. I can access the files through the file tree in MLCad, but I can't find them through Windows Explorer. I thought it might have something to do with the fact that I added the MODELS folder myself, so I tried to remove that folder, then opened MLCad again and tried to access the files. And lo and behold, something inexplicable happened: I can now access the five files that I've updated since I installed MLCad on this computer - through another MODELS folder, which the file tree in MLCad says is located in the exact same spot as the old one was. And those are the same five files that I couldn't - and still can't - find through Windows Explorer. Because when I go to that exact same location through Windows Explorer, the MODELS folder is not there. The two programs give me two different versions of which folders and files exist in that location on my computer... Does this sound completely greek to you? It does to me. For now, I'm tempted just to delete the whole program, re-install it, and then try to save a new file and see where it goes. If the program then creates a MODELS folder, I'll copy the old files into that. ...oh, and here's another weird twist I just discovered. When I moved the MODELS subfolder out of the LDraw folder and onto my desktop, I could still access and open those five aforementioned files - within MLCad - from the location that shouldn't really be there, the 'ghost' MODELS folder. But if I then choose Open File and try to copy the file from there and move it somewhere else, I get an error message that says the file is no longer located in the MODELS subfolder, so it can't be moved. And this seems perfectly logical - except from the fact that the program can still open those same files from that same location where the computer says they no longer exist... And when I then move the MODELS subfolder back from my desktop into the LDraw folder, and try the same, I suddenly have ALL the files to choose from: The original files that I copied from my old computer, plus the five new and modified ones. All in the same location. When I now try to copy one of the files through the Open File method, within MLCad, it works just fine. It now lets me copy the new files and add them to the MODELS subfolder, through Windows Explorer. So yes, I can do it that way, but it seems like an awful lot of extra trouble: Save a new file, click Open File, copy the file, paste it into the folder (where MLCad tells me it already is, which Windows Explorer categorically denies) so it will be visible through Windows Explorer as well. And it needs to be visible through Windows Explorer in order to be openable in LDView... My brain is melting.

They really are works of art, Carl. Absolutely stunning, with an astonishing level of detail and some brilliant stickerwork. Looks like I'll be able to make it to STEAM, so I'm very much looking forward to studying these in detail!

Great work! Looking forward to studying it up close in Skærbæk :)

Both very nice, but the HSBC building is the star of the show for me. Gorgeous!

Whaddyaknow, there is! I think what confused us is that the original link that was posted on an international site, by a Belgian moderator, was in Danish :)

Yeah, CopMike, but that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the page you get to if you click the "Ansøg nu" (Apply Now) button on the right hand side of the application page. That is, indeed, all in Danish. Which is weird.

The pictures are hosted by Brickshelf, which seems to be down at the moment (nothing new there). Until it's back up, the pictures won't be visible.

The reason there isn't one in the set is really quite simple. Read set designer Marcos Bessa's explanation in his last comment on this picture :)

I agree about the detailing, those are very interesting pieces to use for that. And that round tower is perfect - I love how you've done the transition from round to square on the wall below.

I have to agree with the others, I definitely prefer picture reviews. The only person I know who makes video reviews that I really, really like is Tommy Williamson over at BrickNerd - his videos are very well done, creative, and professionally made. And they're just the right length - the number one mistake people make when they work with video is that they don't use the cutting tool nearly enough. I work in television, so I know what I'm talking about. That said, I only ever read picture reviews if I'm unsure whether I'm going to buy a set or not. If it's a set I know I'll be buying, I don't want to know too much about it before I build it - it spoils the surprise!

A quick search would have led you to these topics: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=95946 http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=85861 http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=71379 Have a look there and see if that doesn't help you :)

Yes, it's expensive in Australia. But it's more expensive in Denmark - where it's actually produced. Using today's exchange rates: US $69.99 = US $69.99 CA $89.99 = US $82.38 AU $119.99 = US $111.10 DE 69.99€ = US $93.74 UK £59.99 = US $100.92 And: DK 649.00 DKK = US $116.61. (In Norway it's more than likely, judging by how prices have been in the near past, that it'll end up costing 749.00 NOK = US $119.78.) I'm not saying it's not expensive in Australia. It is, and I can understand that it's annoying. But if I were Danish, I'd feel that it was even weirder that if you walked from the LEGO factory in Billund to the toy store that's closest to it, in the whole world (provided they actually sold LEGO exclusives), you'd have to pay more for the set you found on the shelves there, which in theory had travelled a few metres, than for the set that has been shipped thousands of miles abroad. But that's off topic, and it's a discussion that... well, I was going to say it's a discussion that belongs somewhere else. But it really doesn't, it's been discussed to death in numerous other topics over the past years here on EB. It's just how it is. On topic: I like the set. I'd like to see the house a bit bigger, to at least fit the toy assembly line, but apart from that it's lovely. I adore the brick-built reindeer, and I think it fits perfectly with the rest of the WV series - who says this necessarily has to be the actual Santa's workshop? Why not a tourist trap...? :)

Make sure you read at least a few of the comments below the article, too, if you bother to read the article. Right now, there are 444 comments. I've skimmed through about 100 of them, and I found three that agreed with the 'expert'. Which is interesting, as the majority of people who comment on your average Guardian article are not LEGO fans. It says something about how misinformed the author is.

That's crazy! I had to look it up, I couldn't believe you were right about that. I must have seen them all several times then :) Still - a wonderful MOC!

You know what? I actually saw these pop up in your photostream on Flickr and thought 'nice interior work'. I can't believe I didn't immediately catch what the images were actually depicting - I've seen so many episodes of Fawlty Towers that I can't count them. Brilliant work - should certainly be immediately recognisable. Must be me there's something wrong with :) EDIT: Favourite detail? "Watery Fowls." Hahaha!

The classic Mustang doesn't quite work for me, apart from the easily recognisable rear end it looks a bit too generic and square for my taste. The other ones, though, are lovely - the Fastback has just the right amount of curves, and that Charger is gorgeous.

It really does look great, maybe even more so in that last picture. I really like the top part of the facade, but the way you've re-designed the lower part to fit with a brand design is very clever, too.

Thanks again for the kind words, I'm glad you like this MOC. It's sitting on the table in front of me at the moment, enjoying its time in the limelight :) I'll see what I can do. To each his own - time and effort went into getting that detail right, too, so I don't mind that you enjoy the 'boring' bits :) Yes, there's also a UCS R2-D2 and a Millennium Falcon in the front left window. The Naboo fighter is a miniature model from one of the Star Wars advent calendars, so that's not my design.

This looks lovely, Anne Mette. I guess I can be looking forward to studying it up close in Skærbæk in September...? :)

I'm glad I made sense. My main point, though, was just to inform people reading this thread that there's more than one possible view on this. The original poster writes in this topic that "This "Exclusive" system is really making your fans feel "Excluded"." I disagree with that. It makes some fans feel that way, sure, but it doesn't make "your fans", as in all LEGO fans, feel that way. I'm absolutely convinced that if you asked the majority of LEGO fans about this, the people who felt "Excluded" would be in the minority. I think that the people with my view, who actually like the exclusives, would probably be an even smaller group. But the vast majority would say they didn't care. I don't understand how this stops you from building the MOCs you'd like to build. It's how you feel, and while you are 100% entitled to feel this way, it doesn't make sense to me. If I wanted to build a MOC and there was a particular figure that I didn't have, I wouldn't care if the reason that figure was unobtainable was a) that it didn't exist or b) that it was super-rare and I just couldn't get hold of it - I'd just try to make one. I'd put together different elements to create something close to what I wanted. Or maybe even try to make a decal, or pay somebody to make me a decal that made it better. We obviously don't agree on everything here. But as I said, my point was to show that there's more than one valid standpoint.

That is most impressive! There are some lovely architectural details in there. Does it only exist in a digital version, or did you (or somebody else) actually build it with real bricks, too?