• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About VeritaZx

  • Rank
    Level 2 Stud

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. hey, don't hijack bug / suggestion threads, open your own But the "Build this set" hover is working for me Have a nice day, veritazx
  2. Hi Simon, I know ... being in the programming business myself. I just didn't know for sure it was the same issue. But following rebrickable for some months now, I see things being repaired and stuff getting done ... which leads to things breaking and getting repaired again and so on There is a feeling of progression. Thanks for your answer, veritazx
  3. I wanted to mark a set as built. I clicked on the set in my set list. I then pushed the "Mark as build" button and the system told me, that I didn't have all the parts. The reason for this was, that I was viewing another inventory version than the one I have. But I did not switch that, it was the default. The system should show me my owned inventory, not the other one by default. I posted a similar bug regarding the sets linked on the missing parts page. I assume the owned inventory is just not checked on the set page (so both are essentially the same bug). But no one answered, so maybe I wasn't able to explain what I was meaning. Thus I am trying again Have a wonderful day, veritazx
  4. That would be possible for the old models too, right? So if I can spare the time, I'd add subsets for the A-models in cases where the complete inventory has more parts than the A-model inventory So no additional programming necessary. Solution found. Thanks
  5. Thanks for your answer. I have seen the B-Model sets. Nice. But I do not really care about the B-Models. I just want the parts marked in the inventory of the orginal set, that will not be needed for the A-model. That info can't be taken out of the B-Model inventory, it would have to be added manually to the set inventory. Before suggesting this as a suggestion, I wanted to ask the forum if this was an idea at all (and check that I didn't overlook some simple solution). Cheers, veritazx
  6. Hi there, I put all my old lego sets into Rebrickable and started sorting through two boxes of parts. I still had (hopefully) all instruction booklets and hoped to have complete assembled A-models at the end. I already separated the parts for some of the sets, marking the lost parts in rebrickable. Finally, I built the Highway Rig 5580-1 yesterday. At the end, I had parts left (supposedly for the B-model). As I want to put the A-models into a shelf and not build the B-models, it would have been good to know, which parts where intended for the B-model only. Is there any way to do this or is this worth a feature suggestion? In my case (and I understand that this is maybe not the standard) I do not need the spare parts stowed away. I'll gladly replace missing parts in other models with the B-model parts. But this will thwart my plan to sort through all parts and order the missing ones at the end before building the sets. But I clearly do not want to buy parts that then end up unused. Thanks and have a nice day, veritazx
  7. I looked at the sets containing a certain part in a certain color. I have the option to filter for owned / not owned sets. This suggests, that the info I see on each set is about my sets. When a set has a version, the info I see is (at least in my case always) not for the version I own, but the other version. Example: I own the Three-wheeled Tyrax, which is shown with 2 times the black 2x1-brick, but I own the version with only 1 black 2x1-brick. It would be more accurate to use the info from the owned sets (if applicable). But what about cases where someone owns both versions? Is there a way to represent this szenario at all?
  8. Yes. Of course. Should have thought of that... Thanks!
  9. VeritaZx

    Weight of the MOC

    A rough estimate would be okay, but the data usage is a problem. Thanks for clarifying
  10. VeritaZx

    Weight of the MOC

    May I ask: Why? The bricklink API allows you to retrieve data on any part, including weight. Do you mean "can't" as in 'not allowed to' or "can't" as in 'would need to program something to do that'? The rebrickable database for parts should be expanded to contain weight data (that could be refreshed every night) from bricklink. Then weight calculations wouldn't be too time consuming and could tell you the weight based on available data (like for the overall price).
  11. A short description of the bug in question. The small part images are broken on the overlay page "Buy Parts from Store" (in both tabs, 'Parts in store' and 'Parts not in store') How the bug can be reproduced by us (if possible). I wanted to finally purchase my lost parts, went to the lost parts page, selected the "Buy" tab, clicked the icon 'See which parts are included and missing from this order' - Icon, the overlay appears but there are no images. They worked on the Lost Parts Page. The overlay showed images some days ago when I tried for the first time (maybe a week ago). Opening an image in a separate tab shows the code:  Something seems to be broken here. What browser (Firefox, Chrome, etc.) you were using when the bug occurred, and which version. Chrome 67.0.3396.99 (Official Build) (64-bit), also tested with Safari 11.1.1 (13605.2.8) giving the same results What operating system (Windows, Mac OS, etc.) you were using when the bug occurred, and which version. on MacOS 10.13.5
  12. There are two logins (rebrickable and rebrickable forum). I suggest to link the profiles of both logins based on the email address.
  13. I wasn't sure wether I needed an extra forum login even after I created one. The text on the registration and confirmation pages for the forum login didn't exactly tell me that I was creating a forum login, but said "Login for Rebrickable". So my suggestion is (at least until the logins will have been unified) to differentiate between 'Rebrickable Login' and 'Forum Login', improve the Texts on the forum Login / Confirmation Pages and maybe add a hint that it would be wise for the unification to use the same email address for both logins. Thanks a lot, veritazx / VeritaZx