• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by legolijntje

  1. Hey all! I have a suggestion. If you are planning to do the Top MOC competetition again next year, maybe think about changing it. Although, I don't know how to change it. Let me explain: Well, simply put, the Technic userbase on Rebrickable is much more active than other themes. That means that as soon as a reasonable good Technic moc appears, it looks like it gets instant likes from everyone that likes Technic models. Take a look at the past winners. They are literally all (well, to be honest, the first one not really) Technic models. Every single month a Technic model has won. This month, the AT-AT (disclaimer: I did the instructions for it), actually sits at number one. I was hoping that it would win, not even because I made the instructions, but because it would finally be a non-Technic model. However, it probably won't win, because it looks like MOC-6090 is going to overtake it: again, a Technic model. And, , let's be honest: it's just a bunch of rotating curved pillars, compared to the AT-AT it's not that much 'better' (no offense aeh5040, if you read this. I honestly do think it's an original and good looking model, I'm trying to make my point here ). When you look at views too; the AT-AT has more than 8000 views, the Slithy Toves currently has 'only' 1200+ views. And, there are even a bunch of people who have already built the AT-AT and many more who are gathering parts for it. The AT-AT is really a popular model, lots of upvotes and Reddit, lots of comments on EuroBricks. But, the Slithy Toves is probably going to win anyway. It's just that the actual active users on Rebrickable, are mostly Technic users. And it's not only the AT-AT, there are many more great non-Technic mocs that just don't get as many likes as Technic models. Thing is: I know the contest is to gather as much likes as possible, and I know that if Technic models gather more likes than other models it's just completely fair. But, still, I wanted to at least get you guys to think about this and if there's maybe a way to make the competition (if there's even such a competition again next year) a little more welcoming to non-Technic models. I hope it makes a bit sense. Writing clear texts is not my greatest skill Oh, and btw, now I think of it, it might look like I'm just frustrated that 'my' model probably isn't going to win (it's not even my model, I just did the instructions). But that's not the case. I've been thinking about this earlier this year already, but it would've been a bit of a useless post then, because no-way you would change a contest halfway through the year.
  2. Well, that sucks if you just bought all the parts (not me, but just a big if)
  3. Oooh. Of course! Never thought about that. I'm so used to my personal build options (exact matches) that I didn't even think of that. Well, still, I think it's a nice idea to don't let people press that button if they're not logged in, or just set the default setting on exact when not logged in. To avoid all kinds of confusion.
  4. I don't know if this is a bug or not and if this is already known or not. But in any case... When pressing the build button on a moc while not being logged in creates a very strange parts list. I don't know what it does, but the number of parts stays the same, while the lot amount changes. And even weirder: it changes the color of a lot of parts (sometimes even into non-existing colors for that part). I just had a discussion with someone who was new to Rebrickable. He used this video made by someone to buy parts for that AT-AT moc, but was very surprised to see that when he saw his Bricklink wanted list, it had less parts than the Rebrickable parts list. I eventually figured together with him that he pressed the Build button while not being logged in, which created a completely wrong parts list and lots of confusion. So... What's actually going on there?
  5. This might be a bit late. But, my browser (Chrome on Windows 10) downloads the files just fine. I don't know if Nathan fixed it already or not, but in any case: if it does open as text in the browser (an LDraw file is actually a text file with a different extension), you have to right click on the link and press 'save as'. As a sidenote: I believe I had the same problem when making the OMR site. I fixed it by adding an html5 attribute 'download' to the link, so (a supported browser) is being told to actually download it instead of opening it. Like so: <a href="path" download>Click here!</a>
  6. This reply might be a bit late (I don't read these forums very much), but the suggestion about part location sounds great to me!
  7. Ok, so I decided to submit a little set yesterday, 40215. However, the set just randomly disappeared from the set designer. It just completely vanished. And I wasn't finished... And then while I was asleep, the set suddenly got approved while I thought it was lost. So, now it's.... quite incomplete...
  8. This one is a bit weird, since I just stumbled upon it and I don't have any idea how to reproduce it. Take a look at this: I was looking at 'Sets to consider' for a recent MOC (Technic Wall-E). I was missing 3 different parts, about 50 black threads, 2 LBG 90 degree technic connectors and the two DBG pieces in the image. I clicked include 2 times and was left with only the 2 DBG pieces. But why does it recommend a transformer. It doesn't have any parts at all, let alone the required ones
  9. The Technic Claas is still missing a few pieces (according to the official part count) but except for the sticker sheet I can't find what they are though
  10. I don't really understand your question. You say the wheels do turn, so what exactly is the problem?
  11. I'm not a professional designer or anything, but here are some things I'd like to share: ------------------------------------------ Although there’s nothing really wrong with Rebrickable’s design in general, the general design always felt a bit weird and for some reason ‘macgyvered’. I was never able to really find out why. Also, I think Rebrickable can be a little wider. Most PC screens nowadays are wide-screen and even for a 4:3 screen, Rebrickable is relatively ‘thin’. The header One thing I’m sure of though, is that the header is (and don’t take it the wrong way) just plain ugly. The logo is lime green with yellow, but those colours never return anywhere on the site. Then there’s the advertisement for the app. I understand why it’s there, but it looks horrible with the colourful Lego pieces on the background and that white blurb with ‘available on’. Aside from that: I already bought the app, so the ad is quite useless for me. The header is maybe the most often used part of a website and it should (imho) look clean and organized. The logo and Rebrickable style It seems there’s a bit of a clash as to what colours and logos Rebrickable uses: And then the website: it seems like it mainly uses a dark-blue colour, a dark-red colour and a few shades of grey/white, while the app uses a lot more dark-blue, a random light-blue and little bit of white. And the forum uses yet another grey. And the colours of the logos, well, they almost don’t appear anywhere either… Rebrickable really needs 1 logo for everything and it really needs a house style, especially for the colours. If you’d show me the app while not telling me it is Rebrickable, I really wouldn’t have known it just from the looks. That’s not good. When I see the app (or the website or the forum or even social media for that matter), I should be able to figure out that it’s Rebrickable. It needs recognizable elements. Again, I'm not a professional or anything and these are just my thoughts. Don't take it the wrong way, I'm a huge fan and user of Rebrickable. These are just some of my thoughts
  12. I see you're using LPub3D. Because of your startup issue, I suppose you were using LPub 2.0. It came out relatively recently and it was a major update. Because a lot of things changed under the hood, it had a bit of a rough start (including the startup issues). Try updating to the newest version (I believe 2.0.5). It's a lot more stable than previous versions of LPub3D 2.0 and even more stable than the old original LPub. It might be better to uninstall your current LPub3D and reinstall the newest versions due to some issues that arose with the major rewrite of 2.0. I'm using LPub and LPub3D for a long time now and I can tell you it's by far the best instructions editor for LDraw out there. The original LPub was slowly dying, but then someone picked it up again and started updating it, which resulted in LPub3D. He's quite active on the LDraw forums, so if you have any bugs, don't hesitate to post them there
  13. So, a few new Technic sets are slowly coming to the market (42053, 42054, 42055). They're not yet added to Rebrickable's database. Aside from that, I already made an inventory for 42053 (as private moc). Where can I submit it? It's missing a bunch of pneumatic tubes though, I wasn't sure what to do with all those different lengths. And it's missing 1 part, the new pneumatic handpump; it's not yet in the database. And the spare parts will be added as soon as they are known
  14. I have set 10202. It consists of 3 sets and a few extra pieces. Rebrickable correctly says I have 100% of the parts to build set 10202. However, all 3 'sub' sets (they are all three a set on their own too, hence the '') state that I do not have all the required pieces. My parts list also doesn't include the pieces from those sets (I checked some parts unique to those sets). So, it seems Rebrickable doesn't included pieces from sub-sets (even though for some reason it knows I can build set 10202...). I don't have other set-collections, so I don't if this is a single case problem or a wider problem, but it sure doesn't work correctly