• 0
slangivar

B Model link from main model

Question

Can anyone tell me if there is a link from a top level set to it's b models? I thought it should appear under alternative builds but it seems that only MOCS and subsets are shown there currently.

This might be a bug but I suspect it's more likely that I'm just missing something obvious so thought I would ask the question here first.

As an example

https://rebrickable.com/sets/31052-1/vacation-getaways/ has a B-model https://rebrickable.com/sets/31052-1-b1/camper/ but I can't find a link from the main set's page to this b-model.

Similarly https://rebrickable.com/sets/8258-1/crane-truck/ has a B-model and the B-model has two sub-sets. The Sub-sets appear under the alternative builds tab for the B-model but I can't find a link to the B-model from the main set.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

There is quite a lot of set page improvement needed, to see relationships between sets. That why I posted this suggestion:

If you want it implemented vote it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
10 hours ago, slangivar said:

Thanks thea, that works fine and lets me see all the b-models when I want to check if they already exist on the system. I thought it would be so useful to have the existence of b-models highlighted on the main models page that it might have been a bug. I'll move over to the suggestion board and add my comments onto biodreamers suggestion.

I think it's a question of balancing nice-to-have features with server performance and quick page loading.  If Nathan adds too much to the set details page, it will take longer to load and possibly cause more time-out errors.  Maybe a link to the b-model Search Results page could be a solution.

Thanks for your help and thoughts for improvements.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

That's why there is tabs, you only need to load one of them. the number of relationships can always be cached on the set entry itself, so the system and user knows if it's worth opening the tab, or if there should be a tab in the first place.

if we can have part relationships we should be able to handle set relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I've given you a vote, although I'm still not sure that the missing link from a model to it's B-sets isn't a bug. It just seems to obvious to have been missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

When you type a set number in the black bar search(magnifying glass), it will show the b models by name.  You can choose a specific model or just click on the Green 'Search' and it should give you thumbnails of all of the models listed.  Please try it with set 40222-1.  If you don't get a page with 25 thumbnails, let us know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks thea, that works fine and lets me see all the b-models when I want to check if they already exist on the system. I thought it would be so useful to have the existence of b-models highlighted on the main models page that it might have been a bug. I'll move over to the suggestion board and add my comments onto biodreamers suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As I am getting back, I've asked Nathan about the same problem, and just found out that there's a running thread about it. I wanted to continue uploading B (C, D, E, etc) models (can be found on the back of the boxes) for the Classic Space/Castle/City sets, but hit that wall. Also my previously uploaded B-models lost the links to the BIs. Okay this latter problem can be resolved, but anyway, this should be resolved somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hai, Plastic,

Why not use the set comment function for this?

You could use that field to tell how you found the B-models, what problems you ran into building them from sight, and add links and even thumbnails to each B-model you made. If needed, you could store the images at Bricksafe. Would make your work much more personal, and I, for one, would be interested reading it. Furthermore, set comments show up on the home page for a few days, so others would immediately know what you did.

Take care,
Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Exactly what I mean. -smile-

I did something like that with a whole bunch of old idea books I added some time ago. Here's an example:
http://rebrickable.com/sets/238-1/lego-system-idea-book-no-1/#comments

I think you could use the comment for the main model to list, describe and link to the B-models, and for each B-model, once it is available, you can add a comment linking back to the main model.

MOC pages have lots of comments, with people liking the MOC and asking questions, so why not using the same mechanism for sets. It is only text, doesn't take up much space, comment is already tabbed and loaded only when clicked, so no performance issues, and, most importantly, you can make your commants as personal and beautiful as you wish.

Have fun,
Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
21 hours ago, plastic.ati said:

As I am getting back, I've asked Nathan about the same problem, and just found out that there's a running thread about it. I wanted to continue uploading B (C, D, E, etc) models (can be found on the back of the boxes) for the Classic Space/Castle/City sets, but hit that wall. Also my previously uploaded B-models lost the links to the BIs. Okay this latter problem can be resolved, but anyway, this should be resolved somehow.

One thing to keep in mind is that B models must have official instructions from lego.com  Also B models are designated b1, b2, b3, etc.  I made the mistake of adding a C model and now I can't fix it because there are members with it in their set lists.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 minutes ago, thea said:

One thing to keep in mind is that B models must have official instructions from lego.com  Also B models are designated b1, b2, b3, etc.  I made the mistake of adding a C model and now I can't fix it because there are members with it in their set lists.

 

Indeed. B-models are official LEGO models, C-models are MOCs using only parts from that specific set

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 hours ago, thea said:

One thing to keep in mind is that B models must have official instructions from lego.com  Also B models are designated b1, b2, b3, etc.  I made the mistake of adding a C model and now I can't fix it because there are members with it in their set lists.

 

So there is vacuum again: The backside models/ideas from the Classic era are clearly true alternatives for the main models, but there were no official LEGO instructions for them, and - at the same time I can't call them MOC. So what they are? I think they should be called B-models, but others might think else. Let's make a common admin's decision, or wait for Nathan's word, and I will follow that.

Example: https://rebrickable.com/sets/6956-1-b2/mtron-mining-compound/#parts

I made this backside model 2 years ago, and at that version of Rebrickable I could link my BI for it. Now the link has been gone, and can use only the comment section to reactivate it. However it is not a MOC of mine, so why should I move it to my list of MOCs, even that the BI could be linked far more easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As far a I understand, it works like this:

a few year ago, everything was either a MOC (own creation) or a B-model. So B-models were not just models from the back of the box, but also models taken from LEGO idea books, instruction leaflets and such.

However, right now, LEGO has many sets that have 'official' B-models. For example, all the Creator models have two B-models, three in total.

So, right now, the B's are reserved for 'official' LEGO B-models, and the C-models are for unofficial B-models.
Okay, this sound very strange, but I am sure you understand.

Furthermore, the admins can't simply change a set number, cause many people might have added that set to a list, saved it to disk, uploaded it to other sites, etc. So if a mistake is made, we're stuck with it. Hence, older B-models still retain their original set name, even if the rules have now changed. The new rules only apply to new sets that are added, not to the sets that are already in the database, like the one in your example.

My advice (and if I am wrong I accept punishment -smile-) do go on building those classic space B-models, I, for one, love them, but do submit them as C instead of B.

Take care,
Simon

Edited by Simon
little more explication

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

It might indeed be nice to have a category for these but the way I see it, You'll often have to extrapolate how it was built (except for very small sets) so they could technically be MOCs.

The one thing I have to say about these "back of the box" models is: Please don't have them come out as sets in searches or have a way to exclude them. It's really annoying when you're looking for real sets and you get a bunch of alternate in the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi Vokhev;

I understand your reasoning, but personally, I agree more with Plastic.

When I see real MOCs, I am truly amazed by the creativity of those people, and I know for sure, I will never be able to do that. I do like to try and rebuild models just by looking at catalogs or idea books, but it really doesn't feel right to call that "my own creation" - it is not my own, someone else thought of it, and I am just duplicating it.

As to excluding B-models in searches; from memory I would say that was possible in the previous version, but not in version 3. If you think it is important, and I tend to agree, why not add it to the Suggestions Forum.

Take care,
Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

All this topic tell us that we need a middle ground a "LOC" ie Lego own creation that isn't offical sets but can be found either on the box, instruction, in an Idea book or in any other Lego source such as the Lego video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Hi, Biodreamer;

we're had differences of opinion, in the past, but this time, I admit, I totally agree with you! -smile-

Let's drill down a bit, and then either you or I could copy and paste and create a topic in the Suggestions Forum.

So, LOC's it is. What about build instruction? For a MOC they are required, but for a LOC? Not sure.
What about a picture of the example? That's the only way to know for sure it is a LOC. Picture of a build model?

Parts list? Surely. But what if the colors of the parts used are slightly or very different from the example?

Another question comes to mind - if I build a very old LOC, let's say from the 1970's, do I need to used the old bricks, the ones that were available at that time, or can I use modern bricks?

Love to hear your thoughts.
Take care
Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I would say that a instruction should be added by the author unless it's so few parts that you simply can't make a mistake. In fact I would love if we could add digital 3D instructions to official sets as well. (not as a requirement but as an extra bonus) There should be a global notice that these LOC might not be a exact replica, ie the new author might use other parts or solution for sections that simply can't be seen in the photo or source, or in case o f video games to replace non existing digital parts.I would say that a LOC should use parts as close to the original as possible so if the idea book is released in 1980 only parts available at that time should be used not modern bricks. if you want to make your own version with modern bricks we probably need to have a way of marking that up. it would be like the recreation MOC that has been added for some of the old Technic sets. same goes for other sets or LOCS that has been re-branded into another theme.

LOCS is in my opinion either b models without official instruction or Lego ideas with or without instruction that was never sold/distributed with official parts. so there is actually a few sets that should be moved over to this category if it get implemented.

Edited by biodreamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I can completelly agree with biodreamer, as we would need this LOC category. Some of the critical points have been pointed on, and at the moment I can add one more: LOCs would need a bit different method of approval, as for backside models one should use only parts from the original set, for idea book model one should use parts existing at that time, and so on. I think it would need more work than accepting a MOC, so we may find "some" resistance :) 

Until the possible implementation of the LOCs, I will use the comment section of the original models to link to a backside model's BI :), as it seems to be the least problematic method in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

My analyst fiber is loving this! This would really represent reality. If this feature was there, I would be tempted to populate it with alternates of my old sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 hours ago, plastic.ati said:

I can completelly agree with biodreamer, as we would need this LOC category. Some of the critical points have been pointed on, and at the moment I can add one more: LOCs would need a bit different method of approval, as for backside models one should use only parts from the original set, for idea book model one should use parts existing at that time, and so on. I think it would need more work than accepting a MOC, so we may find "some" resistance :) 

Until the possible implementation of the LOCs, I will use the comment section of the original models to link to a backside model's BI :), as it seems to be the least problematic method in the long run.

Not sure if it actually will need that extra checks how many people would make their MOCS into LOCS? when it lessen their authorship comes to parts it could simply handle that with change request if the author made mistakes. it's not like all MOCS that is approved today has correct part list. I think we could manage with todays MOC process. Maybe simply implement my QA Button suggestion for sets/locs/mocs and we could hold the quality of the site high without giving the admins to much of a work load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

What about Premium LOCs?

At first, I thought no, because LOCs are re-builds of kind, and it feels wrong to put a price on them. But, making good instructions can be a lot of work, and then a commercial incentive might help.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now