All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Thanks for info. After that huge changes, could you update the downloadable CSV files outside the normal rhythm? Thanks!
  3. Yesterday
  4. Correct. A workaround is to manually add your missing parts to the list,, flip the parts to a set, and then mark the parts as lost in the set.
  5. Thanks Toby - I guess that tool doesn’t work if you have less than 100% of the parts for the set.
  6. If you import the xml into a custom list, you can compare that list to an other custom list or set inventory. You can export your part list as a RB csv and import that into a custom list.
  7. If you have all parts for a set in part lists, there is a button 'Combine all parts into set', removing all parts from the part list for that set.
  8. Sorry if this has been asked before: I have a collection of spare bricks (sorted from second hand), and have identified some sets that are definitely in it (none 100% complete). Is there a way to remove the parts from my current inventory to a new collection for the identified set, and also create a list of missing parts to then purchase? I want to do this for each set I have found, so I have a number ready to build (without finding a part is needed for both builds), and have a collection of parts to buy to complete all the sets I have found in one go. Hope that makes sense!
  9. (I accidentally submitted it as bright light orange at first. It's not - it's yellow.)
  10. I found a couple of similar cases: The inventory of 10696-1 - Medium Creative Brick Box contains four Erling bricks - two dark bluish gray and two green. According to the database, they are 4070: Brick Special 1 x 1 with Headlight and No Slot According to the set I bought, all four of them are 4070a Brick Special 1 x 1 with Headlight and Slot The same goes for 17101-1 - Creative Toolbox (the Lego Boost robotic stuff). There are four yellow 4070 in the inventory, but in my set there are four yellow 4070a. Now, you could argue that the difference is so small (and it doesn't change the functionality at all) that the two molds should be combined into one entry. But since they are currently two different entries in the database, I thought I'd let you know. The 4070a entry doesn't have any photo, and it doesn't even exist in yellow, so I will submit a photo of the yellow one. Regards /P
  11. Last week
  12. jaredhinton

    Gold color question

    The difference in these images are 15573 is the official LEGO Element ID image, and 3794a is the LDraw rendered image of the part because LEGO don’t provide a EID image for it.
  13. Pal

    Gold color question

    I guess it's reflected in the database too... these two are both pearl gold. And they also differ in reality, although not as much as in the picture.
  14. Fixed, thanks. It’s unusual to get part 92946 in modern sets so I have changed the part, but if 92946 get verified in this set a second inventory will be created.
  15. Done. I submitted two photos - one with silver background and without reflections, and one with white background but with reflections. I'm not photographer enough to make my phone take a photo with white background and no reflections.
  16. I haven’t sorted it yet. I’ll let you know when I do. Please submit the photo to 43337. You can submit in any color, doesn’t have to be on the list for that part.
  17. The Rebrickable database entry for Mack Anthem ID 42078-1 list part ID 92946 ("Slope 45° 2 x 1 with 2/3 Cutout [Original Version]") in Dark Bluish Gray - but I got 15672 ("Slope 45° 2 x 1 with 2/3 Cutout [New Version]") with mine. Here is photo showing the part ID being 15672: Here is a comparison: 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are 15672. 2, 5 and 8 are 92946. 4 and 6 are from Mack Anthem. (My apologies for the dog hair...) I don't know if this is a one-off, or if this goes for all sets with ID 42078-1 (since I did not buy all of them). URLs: Mack Anthem 42078-1: https://rebrickable.com/sets/42078-1/mack-anthem/#parts 92946 Dark Bluish Gray: https://rebrickable.com/parts/92946/slope-45-2-x-1-with-23-cutout-original-version/72/ 15672 Dark Bluish Gray: https://rebrickable.com/parts/15672/slope-45-2-x-1-with-23-cutout-new-version/72/ Regards /P
  18. Hmm, I'm not sure where you want that photo? The general https://rebrickable.com/parts/43337/panel-1-x-4-x-1-with-rounded-corners-thick-wall/ already has a photo, and Dark Azure isn't listed (and the color error is still there). Should I wait for a database update or similar first?
  19. Sorry for the post. I just found out myself. It's a part of a hinge: LEGO PART 3149bc01 Hinge Plate 2 x 5 with Hole in Stud Holder (https://rebrickable.com/parts/3149bc01/hinge-plate-2-x-5-with-hole-in-stud-holder-complete-assembly/), with the hinging part broken off. Sorry for asking this.
  20. Can anybody identify this part? It's a red 2x4 plate with a small thread hole (about the size a hole in a threaded hook is) in one of the short sides between the studs. The hole is molded in (see bottom), not drilled. I included a top view to show this is an actual Lego part. My Lego collection runs from 1972 to 1988, so it must be between those years or close to it. I tried searching the web for this part, but I cannot find it anywhere. Has anyone seen this part before, and in what set?
  21. I've made some improvements to the bulk edit operations which should make them much faster now.
  22. I like this idea. I have some other improvements for the notes in mind and will look at incorporating this into them.
  23. The usual culprit is you have Assembled Sets but don't have those parts in a buildable set/part list. If that's not it, please provide me with a specific MOC and part so I can investigate.
  24. jaredhinton

    MOC Tags

    Speaking as a User, not an Admin (statements made here are my opinion not policy). I'd really appreciate it if more care could be taken when tagging MOCs. I use tags to find things I'd like to build but it gets very hard when designers go crazy and tag things with unique tags or spelling errors. If you tag your MOC and it's the only instance of that tag (the number next to it says 1) then one of three things: You may have spelt it wrong, spelling is not my strong suit so I'm pointing no fingers, but if it's a common term and you're the 1st then double check your spelling. You may have used a less common term for it, for example "The Simpsons" vs "Simpsons". Ignoring the argument about which is correct you should be aiming to get the same one the majority of users have used, otherwise your MOC won't appear when someone searches using the opposite one that you used. Having multiple terms for the same thing makes it harder to find them all and hurts your chances of being found. Your tag is probably useless. If it's something so obscure then a user will probably never look for it anyway making the tag moot. For general searches the system checks all info anyway so if that term appears in MOC name or description then a general search will find it, no need for a single use Tag. At this point, with something like 15k MOC's any useful tags have almost certainly already been used. If your tag isn't useful then I question why you use it. I just want to be able to find your awesome MOC's, please help me.
  25. Bricklinks the same. They don’t distinguish the difference. Well for now I’ll add it to a dummy set (to lose the color error) if you could please submit a picture of it as proof it exists that would be great, thanks.
  1. Load more activity