KristofPucejdl

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

KristofPucejdl last won the day on January 16

KristofPucejdl had the most liked content!

About KristofPucejdl

  • Rank
    Level 2 Stud

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I thought about this too. But I ended up choosing not to go for this Free-Cad & Premium-PDF. The main reason being that since I already made the instructions, I want people to be able to use them I also want people who simply can't afford to spend the money (could be as simple as not having a way to do the online payment, being a kid who saves up pocket money... you name it) not to be excluded. The mechanism I am calling for is for people, who just use your free instructions, like the work you have done and/or the fact that they are given this chance to build custom models, courtesy of the designers AND the Rebrickable team, and they just spontaneously want to support the efforts. Efforts of both the designer and the website creators and mods. Mind you I am still talking the small models which I simply have no internal need to ask money for. If I spend some serious time designing instructions for some fairly large and intricate model which brings a considerable cost just in pieces, it only seems reasonable to mark it at some price.
  2. I agree that some mechanism for optional donation should be allowed. I don't think it makes sense to charge a fixed (even though small) amount for very small models but I think (or better say I would like to believe) that people generally respond well to the mildly suggested option to donate. I don't really like asking for donations directly, mainly because of the fact that for these ~$1 amounts it seems like one is just sponsoring PayPal (and also quite frankly it seems like it rarely works anyway) plus (and more importantly) that means that Rebrickable gets nothing. I would actually be quite happy if most if not all of the small tips went to the website piggybank. In the end, we are all using their great service, most of us for free, so it would seem more than adequate to me. I'd be glad to hear from someone who tried this [freemium] option and actually got some tips. That would mean that people are actually willing to donate and if it was even more 'official' and easy to do, I think it might be a nice functionality to have. One could possibly brainstorm some ways to virtually 'reward' or distinguish people that donate (have your name listed, earn some badge, some points...).
  3. Still relevant? https://www.bricklink.com/v3/studio/design.page?idModel=35389 I am not entirely sure how you managed to search endlessly without finding this But for future reference, it is handy to look around bricklink and studio gallery! People often build and post models for which there are free instructions out there.
  4. That's pretty awesome! I like the 'classic' feel of the design combined with RC functionality and great performance according to the video. Very well done! The box is funny - I haven't seen anyone else doing that
  5. Usually, I am an ambassador of 'all legal all the time' techniques. Meaning using connections that fit the system and/or have some precedent in official lego sets. For me, it mostly comes down to not feeling great about some of the other crafted connections (whether it's a stability issue or just not being in favor of the looks). I can appreciate some of these very tricky fine detail mocs that make use of some unexpected weird crooked connection of whatever obscure pieces, but at the same time I think that for good model that is meant to be reproduced, it's better (nicer, classier, safer...) to use proper connections and 'legal' techniques. The example you give, when it's an alternate model and you have this added motivation against finding better design, I would consider your particular connection as OK, with just a tiny bit of headache. I know exactly how that connection feels, and it... doesn't feel great IMO In general though, if I see moc that prohibitively uses plates squeezed between studs, some cheeseslopes stuck on the underside of bricks to get the upside-down plate beneath, or worse yet some shenenigans with obsolete hinge plates connected to lever arms and whatnot, that usually gives me reason to appreciate the model way less than I otherwise would. And I also would call it irresponsible to offer instructions for such design without a very prominent disclaimer. Of course, anything that damages the part inadvertently is an absolute nogo for me. But then again, I do realize I am a bit towards the purist extreme when it comes to this But you asked the opinions so I figured I would mix it up a bit.
  6. Hello, let me first react to some of you: It's sad but true that the theme does matter. In fact, it IMO very much drives the success of the moc. Especially if you don't have some pre-existing audience (e.g. youtube channel, rich flickr fellowship). There are only a handful of designers that I know of who are successful with generic moc designs. The one who stands out the most I think is Jason @JKBrickworks but he also has all (but one) of his MOCs for free. The promotion of your creation, or rather a lack of it, is another massive factor. I don't think any of my mocs would get much attention without a shoutout on AFOL related forums and in my flickr feed. I am looking at your mocs and I clearly see what you mean by the effort you put in being disproportional to the interest. The truth is, however, that if I just saw the thumbnail of any of your builds in the MOC list, I would probably skip over. I had to take closer look at some to really appreciate them. And I don't even think your thumbnail pics are bad. It's simply the topic of the model that is not... clickbaity enough I guess. (Btw I love your House moc and I think the marble maze is the coolest I have seen. I would love to hear that you were able to actually get some plans sold for that one...) Regarding the sales, I really think there is a certain bottom size limit where it starts to make sense to even consider monetized instructions. I would absolutely love it if people understood paying $1 for a nicely done manual to little simple model as a nice way to contribute to the author, but somehow this is not happening. That's why I would always offer small models for free (even if I took good care with the instructions) and perhaps suggested to the people that they can give me some donation (which so far never happened ). Fact of a matter, if my choice is that merely noone would buy the instructions for a buck, or some people would download and appreciate them for free, I always choose the latter. When it comes to larger more substantial mocs, where the design is really something that is worth putting a price tag on, there is still a question of whether plenty people would actually desire for such a model, and whether I can reach out to them by some means of moc promotion. Only if I can check all the boxes, I put a price tag on the instructions. I can see you approve a lot. Still it somehow feels like the feature is not used enough. It seems like the way it's designed on the moc page motivates few people to even click on the bookmark tab to see the MOC Photos, letalone actually uploading them. I wish I could bring some good ideas on the table about how to make it better, but I really don't know. One thing I know is that I have a MOC where 20+ people positively built it to date and most of them actually sent me the pictures via email, but only 4 of them uploaded the MOC photo. IDK, seems like it's either inconvenient or appears irrelevant to people... I can only speculate. But I agree with others, to me as a creator it would mean a lot to have more pictures of the replicas, nicely displayed on the MOC page. And I would frankly also consider it a strong reinforcing factor speaking for the quality of the model. I sometimes see MOCs with many like and plenty of generic comments but no MOC photos and I then have my doubts about how good the design actually is, if people actually build it with success. Last, not to completely steal the topic of this post, I can share my personal 'sales' experience. I only have one premium MOC at the moment, it's been up for about 1.5 years and so far I handed out 63 copies. It's IP based (Star Wars) and it was quite anticipated - I think I had about 20-30 people actually looking forward to the instructions, which release I pushed for several years. The rest I assume is people who found it on Rebrickable while actually searching for this type of content MOC. I am not in 'top' whatever list, so there is really no other way they could accidentally bump into my model. And there is no way my earnings come even close to paying for the extra time I spent on top of designing the model. It's still heavily based on the fact that I somewhat enjoyed the work and I wanted to get my MOC out for... I guess personal achievement and community contribution reasons. There might be a few guys out there who manage to get semi-serious income from instructions sales, but unless you love it for other reasons, I think it's not a good business to venture . Oh, and about the commissions from BL or BO I know nothing about. I guess you'd have to run your own store to have access to part sales profit. I think the BrickLink MOC-Shop used to work along these lines, but now it's I think different and who knows what's gonna happen now, after TLG acquisition.
  7. @Nathan Great, works like charm! Thank's for reading these and taking care.
  8. Yeah, you are right ! Thank's for dealing with such low priority issue.
  9. I would almost call this a bug, but technically it's just and inconvenient feature. Whenever I click on a MOC, it directs to the MOC page but then automatically redirects to 'moc url'/#comments. One wouldn't even notice, but I DO notice because it makes going back to the MOC list page annoyingly difficult. When I just hit 'back' as I am used to, I just basically reload the page. Can imagine this could be an easy fix! Next thing that seems to work oddly is the MOC list (or would it be called gallery? Simply the page where you go to 'Find mocs' ) itself. If I take the first page of any list (Hottest, Newest, you name it) it is ok, but when I go to the 'Next' page of the gallery, it just loads at the very bottom, so you have to scroll up to see the 'next' models in line, and also the thumbnails seem to load in quite laggy fashion, so the browsing is... nothing but smooth. Third, when I'm loading the 'Next' pages of any list, the URL remains the same. Consequently, when I browse to say... 4 pages of the list, click to explore some MOC and then go back (granted I succeed clicking 'back' twice fast enough to overcome the first listed issue ) I appear on the FIRST page of the list. What I would find intuitive would be to go back to the page I was at, with the model that I just checked. I know the second issue could be due to servers and stuff, but at least you can make the view window appear on top of the new page, rather than near its bottom. And I can imagine that some optimization would help with the page load speed as well. Btw I hope this is not just a problem on my end. Apologies if it is
  10. Hello, this issue is of the least possible importance, though it might be easy to fix so I post it here. Crowd pleaser badge for having 500 likes on a specific MOC seems to be awarded if the sum of likes on all of the user mocs exceeds 500. I don't think that's intended, is it? I just earned it and I have one moc with 461 likes and another one with 39.
  11. @Simon Hello, I understand where you're coming from, but as @legolijntje pointed out, there is no (according to mine and his research) existing trademark on that term. LEGO is putting the trademarks wherever possible, likely because they really want to avoid a misstep in that. Hence, I thin, a lot of their TM marks are unnecessary, but present. I completely understand the approach of being safe rather than sorry, but I would like you to re-visit this issue and maybe look more into what actually is or isn't required. I would not mind a mandatory inclusion of the TM symbol within the names that are potentially sensitive, but rejecting the terms on the whole seems excessive. All it will cause is people having to cripple the words, and we will end up with multitude of 'StarDestroyers', 'Star Destoyers' e.t.c... Seems unfortunate to me
  12. Hello, I just wanted to submit my first premium MOC of my Venator-Class Star Destroyer, only to find out that it can not have 'star destroyer' in its name. Yet if I browse through existing premium mocs, there are dozens with such name. Not sure if this restriction is some new cause, but it feels quite discriminating towards new MOCs, given how strong keyword 'star destroyer' is. I would like to get some clarification/explanation on this. Thanks