• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


adrien79 last won the day on September 17 2018

adrien79 had the most liked content!

About adrien79

  • Rank
    Level 2 Stud

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Simon, I understand that Technic plates can replace regular ones for some applications, where only the side is visible. But alternate relationships work both ways and if I need a Technic plate with holes for some set, it won't help to have a regular plate instead. This is why I think these particular relationships are misleading. I think that parts should be made alternate only when they can be substituted both ways in most applications (like 4859/48153 whose pictures are displayed as an example in the build window), making the set unbuildable only in fringe cases. All the best, Adrien
  2. Regular plates and Technic plates (with holes) are currently considered as alternate, for example 3020 and 3709, or 3034 and 3738. I don't think it's a good idea, because the purpose of these parts is quite different. (And regular bricks and Technic bricks are not alternate of each other.) Adrien
  3. Simon, thank you for all this information, I agree with your conclusions. But in my opinion, 3087b is a broken part, and I'm not sure it should be included in the database. I'm not sure that "undetermined type" items are necessary, I think they confuse things a bit further. For build calculations, I would rather expect to group all the variants with glass together as mold variations, and to consider variants without glass as alternates, because the absence of glass is a functionally important difference for some applications. All the best, Adrien
  4. Hi Simon, I've investigated a bit further, and it looks like our current numbering system is a mix of the Peeron scheme and Bricklink numbers. The Peeron system is as follows: suffix "a" / "b" / "c" for variants A / B / C suffix "c01" with glass the variant for slotted bricks is not listed The Bricklink system: no suffix for the later variant (C) suffix "a" / "b" for variants A / B suffix "c01" with glass, except for the larger sizes of variant C that existed with fixed glass only (e.g. in size 1 x 2 x 1 you have 27 / 27c01, but in size 1 x 4 x 2 you have 453 alone) suffix "c" for slotted bricks (perhaps a late addition) The two systems are consistent but incompatible. Currently at Rebrickable we have a mix of both, for example we have parts 645 / 645c / 645cc01, which is unfortunate. The Bricklink system is maybe a little better because a plain number is used for the most common variant, and because it does not create a number for non-existent parts (variant C without glass in larger size). All the best, Adrien P.S.: in the above list of parts, I forgot 604 (size 1 x 6 x 3).
  5. Currently the situation at Rebrickable is a bit messy for older windows (pre-minifig). This applies to parts 27, 29, 31, 453, 645, 646, 3081, 3087. As far as I can see, there were at least three mold variants for each size: Variant A has an extended sill and solid studs. It seems to date from the mid-1950s, and was offered in accessory sets either with a fixed glass or with no glass (sets 1230-2 and 1231-2). Variant B has an extended sill and hollow studs. It was made in the 1960s. It seems that most sizes have a removable glass (but not 1 x 1 x 1). Variant C has a short sill, hollow studs and a fixed glass. It was made from the early 1970s onwards. Some (smaller) sizes were offered without glass in a few sets. Some sizes have a fourth variant (D) for slotted bricks, with no studs at the top, that is certainly very early. There are many conflicting names applied to all these parts, and I suggest to adopt a common naming pattern, e.g. "Window classic [with solid studs OR with long sill OR with short sill] [no glass OR complete]". I also suggest that all parts have the same numbering scheme. The most consistent scheme is that used for size 1 x 1 x 1, with variants 3087a, 3087ac01, 3087b, 3087bc01, 3087c, 3087cc01. Other sizes are less consistent, for example size 1 x 6 x 2 has number 645 for variant C without glass (does it even exist in this size?), 645c for variant D (for slotted bricks) and 645cc01 for variant C with glass. Finally I suggest that all parts of the same size are treated as alternate of each other, and all parts with glass are treated as mold variants (same without glass). This is currently the case for most sizes but not all. I started to file individual change requests, but now I think that a more systematic action is needed by a moderator.
  6. Hi Simon The problem is that no such mapping is possible since the Rebrickable part number depends on the hips color and the Bricklink part number depends on the legs color. For example a black 970x021 on RB (black legs and red hips) is a red 970c11 on BL, whereas a blue 970x021 on RB (blue legs and red hips) is a red 970c07 on BL. The correct mapping depends on the item color.
  7. All hips with different coloured legs are linked to a misleading Bricklink ID. For example 970x021 (Legs and Red Hips) is linked to BL's 970c09 (Hips and Light Gray Legs). This is breaking Bricklink XML exports: "black legs with red hips" are exported as "black hips and light gray legs". Is there something that can be done to repair that ?
  8. Update: you can definitely get the past sales statistics for a specific color and condition with Bricklink's API It would be useful to specify the color if this is not already done, and for older parts it would be definitely better to get prices in used condition (instead of new). This would make Rebrickable prices more in line with reality.
  9. Hi Simon, thank you for your answer, I will do that.
  10. Some MOCs have part or colour errors which are obvious to fix. For example MOC 7007 has plants and baseplates in (non existent) dark green instead of green, and other small inventory errors. These errors are trivial to fix and there is no doubt as to the author's intent (confirmed by the photographs). Should I contact a moderator via "Submit change request", should I leave a comment underside the MOC, or do something else ?
  11. I don't know Bricklink's API, but average sold prices are publicly displayed in their website's Price Guide tab. Are you sure they wouldn't let you use this ?
  12. "Suggested sets" currently only display sets released recently: This might be useful for modern sets, but it does not work well for older ones. For example I would like to know which of the large vintage castles I should buy to recreate the expensive 6071 Forestmen's crossing or 6067 Guarded inn, but "suggested sets" gives useless results (the best one contains 4 parts...) I propose that "suggested sets" show sets from the same time frame (+/- 10 years), or that this is turned into a configurable option.
  13. Hi Thea, As far as I know, there was no grouping called "Lion Knights", this is just an unofficial description of the Crusaders based on the lion displayed on the shields. There is a nice description of the "Crusaders" grouping in Other later factions also have a lion on their shields, they are sometimes called Lion Knights too but this does not seem justified either, see
  14. Hi, you can just create a custom list for that. Sets added to a custom list do not count as owned, i.e. their parts are not added to your inventory.
  15. It seems that the categories "Castle > Lion Knights" and "Castle > Crusaders" should be merged together. There seems to be no consensus on the correct name, but it is misleading to have two separate categories.