kejv2

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. It seems that similar situation is also with normal tiles with or without groove. Using same method as above (investigating my own sets and looking at the official pictures) it's very probable that tiles with groove were introduced only in 1976. So that would mean that all sets before that year should exlusively use tiles without groove. So I suggest following: update all sets before 1976 (exlusive) to use tiles without groove and all sets before 1993 (exlusive) to use 2412a. The rest of the sets should be considered as being in transition period (how long?) and therefore can possibly use either variant. Most of the time the inventory already lists the newer mold but additional inventory with the older one can possibly be added on the case by case basis. Does this makes sense or has someone better solution (ideally not just "doing nothing")?
  2. Yes, I'm aware of the of the fact that there's no perfect solution. That doesn't mean, though, that current situation can't be improved. If we can't achieve 100% accuracy we can at least improve at consistency. I've quite a lot of sets from this period from various sources and I have way more extra 2412a parts (without bottom groove) than what I would expect from the sets' part lists. That for me is kind of statistical proof that most of the sets before 1992 which now list 2412b among their parts lists actually use 2412a. Btw isn't it actually so that 2412b was introduced only in 1993 and so that was when the transition period started? Because if that was true then there would be now argument about what to do with the older sets. They should simply all use 2412a.
  3. Then I suggest setting the hard date as 1992/1993. Even if it might not be 100% correct in all cases it will definitely improve current situation which seems to be quite random. As already said anyone with more info is free to submit a change request later. But generally the bulk update should do majority of the work needed.
  4. I have general suggestion involving many early 90s sets. It's about the special tile 2412a vs 2412b. Based on my "research" (looking at the pictures of various sets - on Bricklink since it sometimes has higher quality images then Rebrickable) I've found out that 2412a was consistently used till 1992 while 2412b is consistently used since 1993. The problem is that this consistency is not reflected on Rebrickable parts lists of sets from this period. Many sets from 1990-1992 use 2412b while others (not so many) from 1993 onwards use 2412a. As an example see e.g. 6551, 6354 or 1632. I can imagine that there perhaps was some transition period where TLG included both 2412a or 2412b in different copies of a single set. This should however rather be reflected by creating two separate inventories for the set - assuming anyone has appropriate knowledge, ideally multiple sealed copies of a single set. Until someone provides such "proof" I suggest to bulk change all sets prior 1992 (inclusive) to use 2412a while the rest (from 1993 onwards) to use 2412b. Does this make sense to you? Does anyone have better info about the 2412a/2412b situation than I have? Can this change if approved by the community be done automatically by the moderators? If not I'm willing to manually edit the sets (or rather make suggestions) myselfs.
  5. I believe I've described exactly the same issue in another post. I understand that technically the change might be quite difficult but it is very useful indeed. I would even say that without it it's not feasible for many users to build the awesome MOCs here on Rebrickable (unless you order extra parts for each MOC which is quite expensive).
  6. Well, I can imagine doing that as a workaround but the main problem comes when I want to disassemble the parts back to their original sets. Without a list of parts and their origin I'm quite screwed :-( Any ideas how to overcome this? (Of course without having to write down the parts manually.)
  7. I want to build a MOC from the parts out of my sets. The mentioned page allows me to iteratively choose the available sets and then subtract the corresponding parts from the MOC until every part is covered. The problem is that after that there seems to be no way to tell which parts are actually taken from which sets - all I get is only the list of sets which needs to be dismantled. I would appreciate ability to export the parts in table similar to the one I'm working with when choosing the sets, i.e. a table with columns: part/color - quantity - set of origin. I would use this table to return the parts back to their original sets after the MOC is dismantled. Or is there any other way to achieve this?
  8. kejv2

    B-Model Builds

    Aside: Shouldn't be the set types page updated? For example when I want to build an "idea" set (based on a picture from Idea book or back of the box) I currently have to mark it as a MOC - Alternate Build. To be honest I would prefer the ability to mark idea builds as LEGO Idea reBuilds (LIBs) but if the current MOC-based way is the official one the mentioned guide should be updated.
  9. Any update on this? Does it sound like a generally useful idea?
  10. I see the low quality image only in preview during MOC submission. Once is ready there's already the full quality image. So this is ok.
  11. And when I use the drag and drop option the picure is uploaded very low quality (much lower then original cca 5000x3000).
  12. Hi, I still see the problem with uploading image from file as described. I'm using Firefox 52.0.2 (64-bit) on Linux Mint 18.
  13. Thanks Nathan! I am afraid, though, that the fix introduced one small bug (or I didn't notice it before). The estimator widget for lost parts says something like: Estimated value: X (Based on Y% of the parts) When drillling e.g. into a specific category the Y value is way larger than 100 which seems little bit strange :-) Also can you consider showing total parts count instead of unique count in brackets after each drill down field? This seems to me as a more logical number upon first glance.
  14. 1) In Drill Downs part of My Lost Parts page there is a number in brackets after each specific category, color or set. I guess it denotes number of disticnt parts for that entry (number of all parts would perhaps be more in place here - but that's not the main problem). They seem to be correct except for the Sets drill downs where they apparently are somehow related to actual number of lost parts but not 100% accurate. 2) When I drill down into lost parts for a specific category, color or set a parts count info is shown like this:Showing X of Y unique parts/colors (Z total quantity) I believe that X and Y are correct but Z seems to relate to number of total lost parts instead of lost parts for the selected entry.
  15. I want to filter suggested sets based on theme, e.g. Technic, Creator etc. Since there's a limit of 15 suggested sets I am not always interested in those offered. For instance when I want to build a Technic MOC I might be more interested in obtaining missing parts by buying other Technic sets than e.g. Friends.