All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. @biodreamer- could you respond to this post?
  3. Well when the photo library is big enough it could actually be a good idea to change those preferences.
  4. I checked several of my set lists that had a good variety of numbers. Everything was going perfect until this one. It started out through the 3 digit numbers and transitioned perfectly to 4 and 5 digit numbers until the MOC for 31079. 5 sets later it is back on track all the way through the transitions for 6 and 7 digit number sets.
  5. This is irrelevant as the vast majority of parts use either EIDs or LDraw images as the main image on thumbs. So you won’t even see a photo until you open the part page, at which point you will be able to tell the difference from its title anyway.
  6. 3003b has a incorrect photo of a 3003a, it makes those entries confusing, since they don't follow chronological order.
  7. This is my personal opinion regarding photos. Standard should be one picture per part taken from a good angle to see the part main features, However if a part has more than one mold, and you can't get the mold difference in the main picture without having a bad view angle, two merged pictures into one is preferred as the main picture. So in case of 3001(a,b,c) and such bricks I would prefer if the two parts in different angle remain, but cleaned up according to guides. and for the notion of it's easier to take 2 pictures than one and your more less requiring photo editing, adding them next to each other is easy compare to cleaning up the shadows and light issues. (you guys still need to add the set light level step to the tutorial, which is great by the way) This way we can be sure that the part exist in that color since the mold difference is fully visible and not hidden under the part. This way I can simply browse my part collection and see all my parts and don't need to hover over each molded brick separately to see which is what mold. I however would still prefer if images had alpha/transparent background instead of white. so for 3005, there is no need for a picture merge, it good to have two picture but since there is no mold with a different underside, no reason to focus on it in the main picture. So the standard stand alone picture should be used. This parts only have different logo on the stud, different pip positions and of course different mold indicators ie letters and number beneath. So far we haven't divided entries of either of those reasons so photos of it isn't required.
  8. So I figured out a way to make this work. If anything looks wrong, please let me know.
  9. Oops, I haven't deployed it yet I need to wait for some image processing stuff to finish which might take a few hours. I have actually modified the change to work numerically where possible for this specific tab. However, getting that to work on all set listings is a much harder problem.
  10. I have no qualms with that. If it is a major issue on a given set, it is easily overcame with renumbering sets -1 to -9 as -01 to -09. That said, though, when I just checked, this change does not appear to be taking effect. Do I need to do something to enable it?
  11. I've added ordering by set number. It's not a numeric field though, so the ordering will be -1, -11 instead of -1, -2. But at least it's consistent now.
  12. Yesterday
  13. No problem, that is also why i posted it here by help. There are not so many moc's i'm looking ad no time on the moment, i'm stuck in 30 of my own projects/ moc's to end in a short time.
  14. I've installed Pale Moon to test. It doesn't reload the page, it just updates the URL to add the hash. As for the scrolling, I have no idea why it does that so can't even begin to try and fix it just for this browser sorry.
  15. Yes, when better photos are added older ones are deleted so it doesn’t get cluttered. I deleted 10 images from that part when reviewing it to take the total number of secondary part photos from 36 to 26 (which took the total number of photos for that part from 66 to 56). The policy is to only show 1 angle of a part in an image (always has been but was not enforced for a long time, similar to white background policy). That’s why we have secondary photos. This is for numerous reasons. 1. when a photo is a thumb multiple angles in one image make the image far too small to be useful. 2. We don’t want to confuse casual users who may think that the multiple angle is somehow the whole part. 3. Some parts benefit from more than 2 angles. It would be absolutely useless to have an image with 3+ angles in one image. 4. It’s much harder for a user to submit a collaged image than 2 separate images. We are endeavouring to remove photos with the same part in it twice. This doesn’t mean we delete all photos like this, only when a new one is submitted. However newly submitted collage photos are no longer approved. To be clear, duplicate photos have only been getting deleted in the last month-ish as Nathan made changes to the system which allowed this to happen. Nederbriks complaint about missing photos has been ongoing for close to 2 years and has been throughly investigated. We now think we have got to the bottom of it and if you read back on this post it will be clear to you that a couple of big changes to how images are handled by the site over the last year or so have complicated his issue and how he expects the site to act. with the addition of the dummy sets, and upon the completion of Simons LDraw project I am confident Nederbriks issues will vanish.
  16. Nederbrik said that he was not just talking about his photos, but many photos submitted by members were disappearing. Yesterday I was researching Nederbrik's post with the 3005 image showing photos submitted by meregt on Oct 28, 2018. At that time the member photos did show up for me. I had to go do other things, and when I returned, the member photos were gone, leaving me with this photo. In looking at the change log, I found that the photos from Nederbrik's 3005 screenshot had all been deleted during the time that I was gone. So he is correct, member photos are disappearing because they are being deleted. Given the choice, I would much rather see 1 photo showing both top and bottom than have the two photos that are currently displayed.
  17. If you do, I'll change the set image for Classic to something more appropriate: and use this for system:
  18. @biodreamer I suggest changing Classic back to: LEGO-Classic-1 Unused parts sold by LEGO between 1945 and 1965 and adding LEGO-System-1 Unused parts sold by LEGO between 1966 and 2000 1966 being the year in which LEGO overhauled all LEGO basic sets and parts packs. From 1958 to 1965 TLG used the same spare parts pack numbers for all countries (with a few minor exceptions). But starting in 1966, different countries had their own spare part packs, with their own numbering system. Also the year that Town Plan was discontinued and the System I Leg was phased out in favor of LEGO System. 2000 being the year (October 17th) when LEGO [email protected] went online. Can you agree with that?
  19. Also, I just noticed, that image Simon uploaded was from BEFORE I added your brown part to a set and moved your photo to Primary. When he took that Screenshot it was still secondary. If I, Simon, or anyone else look now we do not see it there anymore either, because its now a primary photo.
  20. Can't you make another dummy for unknown sources for any time period, because there was a period you could buy classic parts directly from shops part by part and that was what this entry was intended for. I requested it for that particular reason.
  21. Again that’s because your brown one is the primary photo (and can be seen on the color breakdown page, just like Simon has showed above). Primary photos do NOT appear on that drop down on the part overview page (which is the one you’ve taken a screenshot of). like Simon asked, if you could do a screenshot of the brown color page that would be great.
  22. These parts are not known to be from either of those places. They fit less there than in classic. I’ll adjust again for you.
  23. Could you show a screenshot of this page? (User photo: submitted by Lucky-Ramses on Jan. 8, 2018, 10:33 p.m.)
  24. No it's not changing the date of the set makes it worthless, especially since one was reddish brown and not brown which means that parts is from the 2000., if your going to put everything into the same set why make all the other dummy sets. I say move these to legostore-1 or legoland-1 set and return this set to it's original name. so we have one set of the classic system parts like the original idea and picture indicate.
  1. Load more activity