• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by legolijntje

  1. I don't think that's possible. The images come directly from Lego and they have a white background. They aren't generated by Rebrickable and thus It's not something that Rebrickable has control over.
  2. legolijntje


    My opinion on the matter: I highly doubt splitting torsos/legs into sub-parts is a good idea. It would just create a ton of work and a ton of possible problems and inconsistenties. And for what? The group of people that would find that useful is probably very small. Of course I haven't done any research, but I wouldn't be surprised if 99.99% of all users don't disassemble torsos/legs to use the parts. They either just buy them separately (from Bricklink) to begin with or don't use those parts at all. I definitely understand your 'problem' and your use-case @Vokhev but I personally think it's just waaay to special. For minifigure parts at least. For some other parts, like your lever example, I think the group of users who would benefit from that is bigger. Still a minority for sure, but bigger. And the workload is a lot more manageable for those few parts as opposed to the thousands upon thousands of minifigure parts.
  3. It does appear when selecting 'Include Unused Parts' from your sample search. No idea why though, it definitely looks like a bug.
  4. @Simon I removed the 2 comments about the submitted change requests, because I already accepted those yesterday Also, @Memento, if there are missing parts you can submit those just like you can submit missing sets (and change requests). Although, now that I think about it, I'm not sure if there's a minimum level for that.
  5. That looks like a version of part 3087. I'm not sure which one exactly, so you'd have to take a look at the 'related parts' tab to check them all out.
  6. I would say it's the other way around though; I think 28809 can be merged into 18677.
  7. It's because Lego sells the motors as 'sets' with a set-number, a little bag, a booklet etc. and not as separate parts via the Pick-A-Brick service. Sites like Bricklink etc. do sell the motors as parts. Having both the set and part (even though they are basically the same) helps with importing from different sources. E.g. a Bricklink order could contain either the set or the part, imports from Brickset can only contain the set. MOC/Set inventories obviously only contain the part etc. etc. And I'm sure there are people out there who want to maintain their collection exactly as they bought it: either as a set or a part. And as far as I know, this mostly only applies to power functions parts. It doesn't matter how you add it to your inventory. Rebrickable will calculate it the same way. The only thing that differs is that if you add them as sets instead of parts your set count will (obviously) rise.
  8. Or don't completely exclude any, but show (and use) one of them in the calculations with a small print that says something like 'Also known as xxx-1 or xxx-1'.
  9. Phew, it's been a while since I posted that image. I currently can't reproduce it I'm afraid (or that's a good thing, not sure ).
  10. Firstly, you kinda posted it in the wrong subforum and (as you probably know) this forum is English. But, what's done is done, I'll see if I can help; German is not my primary language so I'll answer in English if you don't mind I think you're looking for the following button: go the MOC you want to build then press the green 'Build this MOC' button on the right side then press the button 'Find My Parts for this Build' Rebrickable will then show a (big) table of which parts are in which sets or parts-lists. I don't quite understand this question. You want to remove the parts that are used in the MOC from your inventory?
  11. Well, if you're missing one lot that way, you would probably also miss it via xml or bsx. Some part numbers are different on Bricklink then on Rebrickable (mainly printed parts). If Rebrickable is missing a mapping between its own part number and Bricklinks part number, the part is unknown for Bricklink no matter the export type.
  12. Hmm, when I paste the xml in the textbox it works fine for me. What exactly is the list you're trying to upload? And again, in the meantime, you can upload your list using the 'Export to bricklink wanted list' button on the buy tab on Rebrickable. Or export as .bsx file and upload that to Bricklink.
  13. I have no idea why it returns a 404, that's something for @Nathan It does return a result when you put the element id in the 'search' parameter of /api/v3/lego/parts/ function.
  14. I see. That problem is known (at least for me ) and I think it's a fault at Bricklink and not at Rebrickable. At least the last time I checked (which is a month or two ago now I think), uploading the xml file resulted in an error, but manually copy/pasting the contents of the xml file in the upload text-area did work. Which makes it seem like there is no error in the xml file, only in Bricklinks file-upload thing. But again, that was a little while ago, maybe something changed in the meantime, I'd have to take a look at it again. Also, exporting directly to Bricklink without the use of an xml file by going to the Buy tab on Rebrickable and then selecting Export to Bricklink Wanted List also works fine.
  15. Where exactly did you get this error? On Rebrickable or on Bricklink?
  16. I'd like to bump/repeat this feature requests. I actually recently spoke with more people wanting this very same feature, they're just not active on these forums (and thus don't vote/reply).
  17. @Nathan Maybe you can edit the problematic pages so that it doesn't load everything via de initial request, but loads the content via a second separate ajax call (or something like that)? E.g., user searches for something, user gets to see search results page without any results but with a loading icon, searches pop-up when they're ready. I don't know though, if ajax calls also have a timeout, but it sounds like something that can be configured somewhere. Just thinking out loud here. Of course that's more of a workaround than actual performance improvement, but it's something
  18. I think having subcategories for parts will greatly improve the usability of the search function, especially for a few big categories such as minifigures and constraction. That makes the chance of hitting the 1000 parts (or even the 500) limit much lower and in the rare case you do hit it you can possibly narrow the down search even more using the tags (which should be more standardized and organized if subcategories are added).
  19. legolijntje

    find these pieces

    Now that I look at it again; is it even real Lego? The last part doesn't exist in the color green and I don't see the Lego logo on the studs on either the first or the last part
  20. legolijntje

    find these pieces

    From top to bottom: 3788 53969 or 98313 (not clear from the picture) 44674
  21. Oh, I see. Well, displaying items is something else than searching items. I think the 500 limit is not a display (number of pages) limit, I think the actual search result is limited at 500 (so, when the 500th result is found, it just stops going further).
  22. Well, as @Simon says (that sounds... weird ), loading this much data can be quite demanding on the server. That being said, I still have the feeling that some pages on Rebrickable are not very well optimized and it should be perfectly possible to be able to load pages with a lot of data (e.g. large search results, big inventories etc.) a lot faster. I don't know how, I don't know if it's the software (code) or hardware (server) side of things, I don't know if I'm just completely wrong. I just got that feeling that there's room for noticeable improvement... But let's not forget that @Nathan is working alone on the whole site, so let's not get too demanding
  23. Nope, sorry, I don't. I just edited some things in Chrome, took some pictures and then discarded the changes.