All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Yesterday
  3. Last week
  4. jaredhinton

    Gold color question

    The difference in these images are 15573 is the official LEGO Element ID image, and 3794a is the LDraw rendered image of the part because LEGO don’t provide a EID image for it.
  5. Pal

    Gold color question

    I guess it's reflected in the database too... these two are both pearl gold. And they also differ in reality, although not as much as in the picture.
  6. Fixed, thanks. It’s unusual to get part 92946 in modern sets so I have changed the part, but if 92946 get verified in this set a second inventory will be created.
  7. Done. I submitted two photos - one with silver background and without reflections, and one with white background but with reflections. I'm not photographer enough to make my phone take a photo with white background and no reflections.
  8. I haven’t sorted it yet. I’ll let you know when I do. Please submit the photo to 43337. You can submit in any color, doesn’t have to be on the list for that part.
  9. The Rebrickable database entry for Mack Anthem ID 42078-1 list part ID 92946 ("Slope 45° 2 x 1 with 2/3 Cutout [Original Version]") in Dark Bluish Gray - but I got 15672 ("Slope 45° 2 x 1 with 2/3 Cutout [New Version]") with mine. Here is photo showing the part ID being 15672: Here is a comparison: 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are 15672. 2, 5 and 8 are 92946. 4 and 6 are from Mack Anthem. (My apologies for the dog hair...) I don't know if this is a one-off, or if this goes for all sets with ID 42078-1 (since I did not buy all of them). URLs: Mack Anthem 42078-1: https://rebrickable.com/sets/42078-1/mack-anthem/#parts 92946 Dark Bluish Gray: https://rebrickable.com/parts/92946/slope-45-2-x-1-with-23-cutout-original-version/72/ 15672 Dark Bluish Gray: https://rebrickable.com/parts/15672/slope-45-2-x-1-with-23-cutout-new-version/72/ Regards /P
  10. Hmm, I'm not sure where you want that photo? The general https://rebrickable.com/parts/43337/panel-1-x-4-x-1-with-rounded-corners-thick-wall/ already has a photo, and Dark Azure isn't listed (and the color error is still there). Should I wait for a database update or similar first?
  11. Sorry for the post. I just found out myself. It's a part of a hinge: LEGO PART 3149bc01 Hinge Plate 2 x 5 with Hole in Stud Holder (https://rebrickable.com/parts/3149bc01/hinge-plate-2-x-5-with-hole-in-stud-holder-complete-assembly/), with the hinging part broken off. Sorry for asking this.
  12. Can anybody identify this part? It's a red 2x4 plate with a small thread hole (about the size a hole in a threaded hook is) in one of the short sides between the studs. The hole is molded in (see bottom), not drilled. I included a top view to show this is an actual Lego part. My Lego collection runs from 1972 to 1988, so it must be between those years or close to it. I tried searching the web for this part, but I cannot find it anywhere. Has anyone seen this part before, and in what set?
  13. I've made some improvements to the bulk edit operations which should make them much faster now.
  14. I like this idea. I have some other improvements for the notes in mind and will look at incorporating this into them.
  15. The usual culprit is you have Assembled Sets but don't have those parts in a buildable set/part list. If that's not it, please provide me with a specific MOC and part so I can investigate.
  16. jaredhinton

    MOC Tags

    Speaking as a User, not an Admin (statements made here are my opinion not policy). I'd really appreciate it if more care could be taken when tagging MOCs. I use tags to find things I'd like to build but it gets very hard when designers go crazy and tag things with unique tags or spelling errors. If you tag your MOC and it's the only instance of that tag (the number next to it says 1) then one of three things: You may have spelt it wrong, spelling is not my strong suit so I'm pointing no fingers, but if it's a common term and you're the 1st then double check your spelling. You may have used a less common term for it, for example "The Simpsons" vs "Simpsons". Ignoring the argument about which is correct you should be aiming to get the same one the majority of users have used, otherwise your MOC won't appear when someone searches using the opposite one that you used. Having multiple terms for the same thing makes it harder to find them all and hurts your chances of being found. Your tag is probably useless. If it's something so obscure then a user will probably never look for it anyway making the tag moot. For general searches the system checks all info anyway so if that term appears in MOC name or description then a general search will find it, no need for a single use Tag. At this point, with something like 15k MOC's any useful tags have almost certainly already been used. If your tag isn't useful then I question why you use it. I just want to be able to find your awesome MOC's, please help me.
  17. Bricklinks the same. They don’t distinguish the difference. Well for now I’ll add it to a dummy set (to lose the color error) if you could please submit a picture of it as proof it exists that would be great, thanks.
  18. HI! Since a month, some parts I have in enough qty in my parts lists are checked missing when I create the missing parts list on many moc... I got an easy exemple ; I found a moc and brick 2x3x1 black says missing 3 and I must have 20 of those... Part list available to build are ok, parts are in my parts list so i don't understand how it is possible. Thx
  19. Someone can explain how I can use a xml part list to compare within my parts list to know what parts are missing? thx Mike
  20. I keep track of where (most of) my lego parts came from, but I don't know about these. I know these did not come in a set, and they did not come from Brickowl. My third biggest source of parts are the loose parts boxes at my local Lego Store, but I only have two of these - and when I buy from the loose parts boxes I usually buy much more than that. So I don't know where these came from. Brickowl lists a bunch of sets where this part comes in dark azure, but Brickowl doesn't distinguish between 15207 and 43337. https://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-dark-azure-panel-1-x-4-x-1-with-rounded-corners-15207-43337
  21. Do you know what set it came in? Variations like this are rarely made clear by Lego so we rely upon the community to find them. This will be an example of it being wrong in a set somewhere. Or sometimes parts are found in Lego stores which never appear in a set, could be an example of that. Either way with more info we can fix this color error.
  22. I have the 1 x 4 panel with thick wall ID 43337 in dark azure. When adding them to Rebrickable, they give a color error. Only 15207 (the same piece with a thin wall) is available in dark azure. Here are pictures showing part ID and comparisons with 15207/43337 pieces: Part ID 43337 clearly visible: Comparison with part ID 15207: Comparison with another part ID 43337 (or actually ID 30413 since it's transparent): Color error: Related parts: https://rebrickable.com/parts/15207/panel-1-x-4-x-1-with-rounded-corners-thin-wall/ https://rebrickable.com/parts/43337/panel-1-x-4-x-1-with-rounded-corners-thick-wall/ Regards /P
  23. Pal

    Gold color question

    I'm too color blind to drive a ship or an airplane, but I can still see the difference. But yes - I think you are right, they're both the same color, just different.
  24. gumalca

    Gold color question

    I recently read somewhere that there is a color change in pearl gold just now going on and that there was already one some years ago. And there were even sets produced that had both variants in one box as the color change happened. It's just that Lego itself considers it too minor to give it a new color name.
  25. Vokhev

    Gold color question

    That's what I think also. I have quite a few of those in pearl gold and there can be considerable variations.
  26. TobyMac

    Gold color question

    They could both be Pearl Gold. This color is known to have some different shades
  1. Load more activity