biodreamer

Members
  • Content Count

    1607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

biodreamer last won the day on May 17

biodreamer had the most liked content!

About biodreamer

  • Rank
    Level 8 Stud

Contact Methods

  • Bricksafe URL
    http://bricksafe.com/pages/biodreamer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
  • Interests
    Software development, Games of all types (Computer,videogame,board games,..),Movies,Lego .
  • Favourite Set(s)
    6987-1, 375-2, 6085-1,6986-1,6985-1

Recent Profile Visitors

1688 profile views
  1. Well when the photo library is big enough it could actually be a good idea to change those preferences.
  2. 3003b has a incorrect photo of a 3003a, it makes those entries confusing, since they don't follow chronological order.
  3. This is my personal opinion regarding photos. Standard should be one picture per part taken from a good angle to see the part main features, However if a part has more than one mold, and you can't get the mold difference in the main picture without having a bad view angle, two merged pictures into one is preferred as the main picture. So in case of 3001(a,b,c) and such bricks I would prefer if the two parts in different angle remain, but cleaned up according to guides. and for the notion of it's easier to take 2 pictures than one and your more less requiring photo editing, adding them next to each other is easy compare to cleaning up the shadows and light issues. (you guys still need to add the set light level step to the tutorial, which is great by the way) This way we can be sure that the part exist in that color since the mold difference is fully visible and not hidden under the part. This way I can simply browse my part collection and see all my parts and don't need to hover over each molded brick separately to see which is what mold. I however would still prefer if images had alpha/transparent background instead of white. so for 3005, there is no need for a picture merge, it good to have two picture but since there is no mold with a different underside, no reason to focus on it in the main picture. So the standard stand alone picture should be used. This parts only have different logo on the stud, different pip positions and of course different mold indicators ie letters and number beneath. So far we haven't divided entries of either of those reasons so photos of it isn't required.
  4. Can't you make another dummy for unknown sources for any time period, because there was a period you could buy classic parts directly from shops part by part and that was what this entry was intended for. I requested it for that particular reason.
  5. No it's not changing the date of the set makes it worthless, especially since one was reddish brown and not brown which means that parts is from the 2000., if your going to put everything into the same set why make all the other dummy sets. I say move these to legostore-1 or legoland-1 set and return this set to it's original name. so we have one set of the classic system parts like the original idea and picture indicate.
  6. Those parts did not exist in that period and do not belong there! Parts like 3003b and 3001c belong in that set. together with a lot of slotted bricks
  7. Check current topics in: https://rebrickable.com/help/ and keep an eye out for new entries, in this case check the MOC session and the tool you used to design with.
  8. Official Lego sets don't have LDD files unless a fan has made one, so your requesting something that doesn't exist.
  9. The main inventory should be without sprues and wheels, have all parts needed to build everything in the instruction book (not necessary at the same time), unless it claim to need other sets such as a motor pack. For Xin1 we simply allow the community to post "b" models for all models including the first with correct inventory. (no need to argue about which is A), the user that just want the capability to just build one of them can then look at that inventory.
  10. yeah don't like the -m-1 suffix, make me think it's a minifig subset. these sets has a offical name from the start, they are called super sets. so using "m" makes no sense, why not use "c" as in combined set and allow motorized sets into the mix where sets + motor set is a super set. and you get the number of valid sets to grow quite a bit.
  11. Well I was thinking ahead and wanted a system that would work for MOCS, ie custom alternate builds using more than one set. like those Space police mocs I once did. And still have them listed when looking at the original set(s)
  12. well super models aren't b-models so they should have their own submission flow, instead of trying to make b-model code work for it. Personally I think the biggest set should be the parent of such super model rather than the highest number. This might be the same but if you lack the largest set your less likely to have the parts.
  13. it should be safe to check for a "p" in the part id, if the id start with a number. I don't think we will reach "p" in molds and if we do we probably should skip that letter... for parts with just a name and such as pouch and pillow might be printed but you will not know with any simple logic. Not sure if the word "print" is used in all part descriptions for those.
  14. That is not what he is saying: he want the "dark brown" column in the table to be highlighted in this case. (since he open a dark brown part) so he quickly spot that he got 4 of them and don't have to try to spot it among other similar colors like reddish brown which you might need to mouse over to see the difference between. or why not add a extra row above "You have 474 of this part in 15 colors" saying "You have 4 of this parts in Dark Brown" which means you don't even have to look in the table...