• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Simon last won the day on May 3

Simon had the most liked content!


About Simon

  • Rank
    Level 8 Stud

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Etten-Leur - Netherlands
  • Interests
    Music (was a DJ once), science-finction (wrote some stories once), computers (earned some money once), trains (sold my Marklin once) and Lego (50 kilos, and I gave it all away 20 years ago).

Recent Profile Visitors

2378 profile views
  1. @biodreamer- could you respond to this post?
  2. If you do, I'll change the set image for Classic to something more appropriate: and use this for system:
  3. @biodreamer I suggest changing Classic back to: LEGO-Classic-1 Unused parts sold by LEGO between 1945 and 1965 and adding LEGO-System-1 Unused parts sold by LEGO between 1966 and 2000 1966 being the year in which LEGO overhauled all LEGO basic sets and parts packs. From 1958 to 1965 TLG used the same spare parts pack numbers for all countries (with a few minor exceptions). But starting in 1966, different countries had their own spare part packs, with their own numbering system. Also the year that Town Plan was discontinued and the System I Leg was phased out in favor of LEGO System. 2000 being the year (October 17th) when LEGO [email protected] went online. Can you agree with that?
  4. Could you show a screenshot of this page? (User photo: submitted by Lucky-Ramses on Jan. 8, 2018, 10:33 p.m.)
  5. In your first post, you added a screenshot showing a part list with part 2817 in Dark Blue. My question was: have you checked the part details page for 2817? Here's what I see, when I do that, and when I am NOT logged in: The brown photo is still available - IT IS NOT MISSING - but it is not displayed on your part list, because I added an LDraw image for that part, and that is what is currently displayed. Again, as I said earlier, within a few weeks that LDraw image will be replaced by the right color. This has nothing to do with being a regular user instead of an admin; in part lists admins see exactly the same thumbnails as you do. You can still see all the photos, but you have to go to the part details pages to do so. You are presuming that photos are missing, simply because you don't see them anymore in your part list. Why are you refusing to click on a part and take a look at the part details page?
  6. Marchel; the screen shots you provides are showing part lists. Have you ever tried to check the Part Details pages for the parts for which you think the photo's have gone missing? The reason for your problem, I think, is very simply: on the Part Details pages, the system can display three images: an LEGO element image, a rendered LDraw image and a user photo. For any list in the system, part list, custom lists and inventories, the system can only display a single thumbnail for each part. To decide which image to use for these list, the system has an algorithm, that basically says: if there is a element image, show that if, not, if there is an LDraw image, show that, if not, if there is a user photo, show that. It's more complicated than this, but it simply means, that if we have an LDraw image, we show the LDraw image, instead the user photo. And you are right, I have added a lot of new LDraw images, and for all of these, the system is now showing those new LDraw image, not the original photos. Right now, for many of these parts, the system is showing the Unknown Color. In a few weeks. when I do the next update, that color will be replaced by the right color. All of this has been announced in this thread. But this doesn't mean the photo's are missing. In both schreenshots you provided, if you select the individual parts, you will see the photos are still available. Could it be that you've just been looking at your part lists, without checking the Part Details pages?
  7. Yep, you can compare sets and custom lists (set vs set, set vs cl, or cl vs cl). If you want to compare with a regular part list, you might need to export as csv and then import again into a custom list.
  8. Eh, yeah! -smile- I am currently researching polybags and their collectors (for one of my next reviews), and although I understand that some folks keep their polybags closed, hoping they will make some money in a few years, I have seen people who actually keep the opened polybags after building the sets, and they show then as if they are *real* treasures. Humans are strange creatures, indeed!
  9. My final thought on this (and then I'll leave the decision to the part experts): It is almost impossible to define what constitutes a "model" within a set. If a minifig is sitting in a car, is it part of the car model? If the fig wears a helmet, is it part of the model? If a Speed Champions Ferrari has two different kinds of rims, are they both part of the model? The definition of "model" is so subjective that IMO it can NOT be used to seperate regular parts from spare parts. Which leaves us with the only objective characteristic: is the part referenced in the parts overview of the BI? If so, then it is a regular part, if not, a spare part. And as bio said, we leave it to our userbase to add for a/b/c-models or any other kinds of sub-sets.
  10. Folks; I think we should keep MOCs out of the discussion. Almost all MOCs use parts that have been released within official LEGO sets. Some MOCs use parts from only two of three sets, for others you might need parts from dozens of sets, but in theory, every MOC is a MSRB. If we create additional coding and new sections in the Alternate Builds tab, and allow MOCs to be re-defined as MSRBs, that system is bound to be misused, as MOC designers want to maximize their exposure. Again, I suggest adding MSRBs within the existing system, and only for sets. As MSRBs are more like super-sets/value-pack, I can live with a numbering system akin to super-sets. Which means: if we have an official number from LEGO, we use that number, if not, we use an "M" followed by the set number that contributes the largest number of parts. We have done the same for value-pack, using a "K" for kit. The notes can be used to list the sets involved; and those sets get a link back to the MSRB. That solves the search issues. This would indeed mean that both super-sets and MSRBs contaminate the theme ownership charts. But the same could be said for magazines (which are currently stored by theme). If and when this becomes a problem, there are several possible solutions: use tags to remove them from the theme charts, moving all these sets to special themes, or even adding an additional field. Take care, Simon
  11. The following is just my personal opinion, I haven't discussed this with my fellow admins yet. Rebrickable is not just about what you can build, the website is also used for inventory management. In this case, these two goals interfere with each other: lots of sets contain accessory parts, not needed to build the model, but definitely part of the inventory. For inventory management, we need to show all the parts; for building we are only interested in the parts needed to build the model. But we already have a solution for that problem: if a 3-in-1 set contains more parts then needed for the main model, the set inventory should to contain all parts, and an addition sub-set, like those used for the two b-models, can be used to show the part actually needed to build the main model. As to minifig and minifig accessory parts, the Build function already has an option to ignore those parts in build calculations. That setting, when saved as default, is also used for the Build this Set section in the side-bar, which will then show how many parts were ignored. To simply build the model, without minifigs and minifig accessories, you can set your Build options accordingly. In the few cases where that doesn't work, such as 3-in-1 models with additional parts for one of the B-models, we can add an extra b-model, as mentioned above. The Spare Parts section of an inventory states "These spare parts are not required to build this set". Note the word "set". It doesn't say model! To build the entire set, as it is depicted in the main image, you need all the parts listed in the Standard Parts section. In all most all cases, as far as I know, these are the parts depicted in the parts overview of the Build Instructions. So the Spare Parts, and this would be my definition, are those parts that LEGO added additionally to a set, which are NOT depicted in the parts overview of the Build Instructions. The only two exceptions are sticker sheets and brick seperators; the first are never shown in the BI overview, but are clearly needed to build the set as depicted in the main image; the latter is sometime included in the BI overview, and sometimes it is not. Both are a non-buildable parts, so they can be ignored by the Build Calculation. Apart from this, we have some small problems with the part count in the side-bar. Some parts are in the BI overview as assemblies, while we inventory them as sub-parts. In those cases our part count differs from the LEGO pieces count. We may have a similar problem when a set has multiple inventies with different part quantities. On top of that, most super-sets (value packs containing other sets), show a part count of zero. I think we should add a new field to the sets database, called "pieces", which can be manually set to the LEGO pieces count. The field could be initially populated with the parts counts, and it can be shown in the side-bar after the Rebrickable parts count: Parts xxx (LEGO xxx) Take care, Simon
  12. I am not in favour of software changes and additional sections in the Alternate Build tab just to support half a dozen MSRB's. Functionally, I'd suggest handling them as kinda Value Packs. Presuming these are mostly modern models, the multiple sets involved would normally have a -1 suffix. I like Bio's idea to use the set that adds the most parts to the combined model as base number, and simply add -2 for the combined model. If LEGO officially published instructions for an MSRB, the instructions will have an official LEGO number (five or siz digits). In that case, I'd suggest using the official number of the instructions as a base number for the MSRB. We do the same for magazine/books sets. I don't like having the set numbers of the sets involved within the set name. We started doing the same for Value Packs, and found that there were Value Packs that contained 6 or even 8 sets, which makes the set name way to long. So for a lot of Value Packs I removed those set numbers from the set name and added a note like this: Contains four sets: 1887-1, 1888-1, 1889-1 and 1890-1. where each set number is a link to the set. The search will pick up on this, and show the value pack when searching for one of these sets. I suggest doing the same for MSRB's.
  13. I regenerated the thumbs, but it is still not showing... @Nathan- can you look at this?