AndyC

Given the toothed version is already there, I'd probably lean towards sticking with that one. It also has the advantage that it can be used everywhere the newer version can, which isn't necessarily entirely true the other way around.

A classic eBay scam is to keep "selling" items between multiple fake accounts in order to build up a seemingly high amount of positive feedback, thus prepping the account to look genuine when they use it to really scam someone. The giveaway is often feedback being given almost the instant the bidding finishes. The same items being sold over and over is also a common sign, because the scammers can't be bothered to go to all the effort involved in creating lots of different auctions.

To be quite clear, I'm not suggesting that you, as an individual, shouldn't vote on things you'd like and certainly not that anyone should go on Cuusoo and try to suggest what others should vote on (which seems a crazy thing to do to me). Rather I'm suggesting that if you're going to try and get a whole community, such as Eurobricks, behind an idea then it's better to apply a degree of collective wisdom to pre-filter the ideas to a degree. There would be very little point, for example, in Eurobricks making a big deal of the MLP project and trying to drum up support when we all knew it simply couldn't happen. It makes more sense to rally the community behind some of the great, smaller but still worthwhile projects, than to simply highlight the more grandiose or edgy projects.

I've been through all mine and made sure they work in 4.3.5, brick version 835.3 (correcting any minor issues I can - mostly giving horses a face!) I'll go through more thoroughly over the next few weeks making any other improvements I can with any newer bricks/decorations.

Yup, a similar problem exists when applying decorations, particularly for surfaces like the minifig head where all the available choices don't fit on-screen at 1366x768 and there is no way to scroll to see more.

There was some discussion on this in the Technic forum when the smoothed version was introduced. It seemed that official sets had never actually used the teeth (which were a type of connection phased out some time ago due to being prone to breakage) and had rarely if ever been of much use to MOCer's either. I'm not overly convinced there is actually a practical way of using the connection either, although it's occasional useful visually as a purely aesthetic feature.

But from an engineering perspective it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to build things out of Lego at all. It doesn't really make much sense to worry about using Technic pins when various glues are available that would probably provide a cheaper, more flexible solution. There's something that makes each and every one of us (mostly) stick to the system, even if we chose to deviate slightly, that goes beyond mere practicality and common sense. You'll never get everyone to agree where the line is, but it surely exists for all of us somewhere. There is a point when somebody's construction just becomes a model and not a LEGO model.

Stretched tires or axles used as torsion springs are pretty much guaranteed not to pass review. Some other "illegal" connections like plates used to connect beams or the odd technic pin used incorrectly (such as in 8043) might sneak through review but would/should be rejected if they are spotted. Essentially any part that is left under stress or in tension is probably an illegal technique, since it will shorten the lifespan of the piece and may increase complaints to TLG, or worse break and risk a child being injured on sharp fragments. AFOLs may not care much if a technic pin breaks, but it really does matter to TLG. I'm actually a little surprised to see the Unimog does seem to violate their rules, although I guess with larger Technic it's often much harder to judge than with more classic System models.

But they went beyond merely "impractical" and were entirely in the realm of licenses that TLG simply could never have even gone after. And, if anything, were promoting a competing brands products. So, it's hardly surprising that they were pulled. The problem with us, as a community, pushing big and "impractical" suggestions is that they quite probably will reach 10,000 votes. And then they will either be entirely dismissed or scaled back to something people didn't really want. If that happens too often, people will start to see Cuusoo as a failure, never really delivering anything they're voting for. And then people will simply lose interest. Far better for the community to get behind and promote some of the really great models that could very well come to fruition without heavy compromises. Because in doing so we will not only get great new models, but help to make Cuusoo more of a success. And the more successful it becomes, the greater scope the Cuusoo team will gain for trying out somewhat riskier ideas, including the bigger and more challenging projects that many AFOLs would like Cuusoo to tackle.

Maybe, but then you end up with a lot of models getting 10,000 votes but failing review because they just aren't practical (or passing review and ending up somewhat of a compromise). I'm not sure that's necessarily a better result.

I doubt it was the tracks, per se, that were the expensive part of the monorail system. TLG could probably produce the ramps, curves and straights without much difficulty. The problem comes from all the more complex constructed parts like the motor assembly, the start/stop track and the automatic points. All of those are going to be costly to produce and they're all also very much single-use pieces. A modern re-make of the monorail system would probably to sacrifice those capabilities in favour of PF control more like standard trains and also reduce the number of required track pieces where possible. It would probably also have to be released in place of standard trains, rather than alongside them, which I suspect might put more people off than otherwise. Done well and without worrying about compatibility with the past version, I think it could work well (or at least as successfully as trains in general). Although I do wonder if just making ramp pieces compatible with existing trains might not work just as well - I know as a kid the Futuron monorail's appeal was as much in that sort of "3D" aspect as it was anything else.

But which is more creative? 1) Being given a box of Lego bricks and being asked to make something that resembles the Statue of Liberty 2) Taking an existing 3D model and printing a one piece, near perfect, replica. You'd be hard pressed to find many people (AFOL or otherwise) who'd argue the latter. Sometimes placing constraints on how you do something is exactly what makes the end result more creative (and that applies across the board). The question the non-purists argument ignores is, where is the cut-off point? When does the model stop being a Lego model? How would you feel if you went to a Lego convention, only to find that all the "Technic" models were actually just off-the-shelf RC models with a single Lego liftarm glued on the back? Would you still argue that it was simply creative solutions to problems? Personally I don't like the idea of modifying or painting parts, because I never know when I might want to use them as they originally were. I wouldn't lose sleep over using a bit of non-Lego string or a rubber band however. I wouldn't hold it against those who do, though there is a point (defined mostly by gut feeling) when I'd think they'd gone too far for it to feel within the spirit of Lego building, to me at least.

It's worth noting (because many people overlook it) that you can always switch temporarily to Extended Mode using the View -> New Themes menu option, add/paint any parts you need, and then switch back to the simplified interface if you prefer it.

Bear in mind, as well, that the performance characteristics of batteries may well vary between differing brands too. For a "fair" competition I think there are two choices: either furnish everyone with a completely new set of batteries each time (potentially very expensive) or replace it with a Li-Ion battery pack, which would typically have a more consistent performance. At the end of the day, however, the only way to really be sure of the impact is to repeatedly try it out and measure it. Or wing it and just treat it a bit like a handicap mechanism, with those less skilled going first when the batteries are likely to be "fresher"

Yeah, I've had a few sets that required cutting those tubes - it seemed wrong somehow, which is crazy when it's in the instructions. I'm pretty sure some of the old Pneumatic sets required you to cut hoses too. I still don't like doing it though, I can always imagine a situation arising the very next day where I need that part I cut, but just a little bit longer...

Of course it's also possible that Jamie is actually just a bad cook and did, in fact, once manage to burn soup. He's a tricksy fellow at times.

It'd be a cunning move by TLG to bring that part back in a Friends set, as it could well encourage the sale of a lot of sets to people who might otherwise ignore the theme entirely.

If it isn't legit, then they're in for a world of legal hurt. Copying the Lego artwork is one thing, but that's got a Lego logo on it - which is a Trademark. Reproducing a trademark without permission is a far more serious offense.

Brickshelf, DropBox and Skydrive are often used by members as a way of sharing digital Lego creations, as well as images. And since all of them are set up specifically for file sharing, they all provide a better interface for doing so than Eurobricks could. They also (presumably) have a set-up which allows for sharing without incurring excessive bandwidth costs.

Well the only real advantage was around the time of transition from LDD3 to LDD4, where there were a lot of brick corrections that would cause models to fail to load quite often in LDD4. Given that has mostly stabilised with recent brick updates, it might not really be all that necessary. Although, at the end of the day, if you've updated LDD, it's not as if you can switch it back to an earlier brick version.

I think too much is made of how long it took for that to get to 10,000 votes. I'm sure many people, like myself, saw it as something too big and expensive-looking to fully get behind. It's an awesome build but, at the same time, it's never going to be produced looking like it does in the picture. It's not dissimilar to the things that counted against the UCS Sandcrawler or even the Portal set, which has far too many custom pieces IMO. Of course if you're pitching mostly to a non-AFOL community (which licensed models usually do) then many of the voters are probably going to overlook the practicalities because their focused on the "ooh, Lego Portal, how cool would that be!" factor. I think if the AFOL community came together behind a model with no fancy new parts, no complex licensing and that could realistically be somewhere in the $30-$50 range, then votes would accumulate quite quickly. The trouble is that requires making a small model with wide appeal and getting people to pay attention to it. In many ways, the MOC community makes this even more difficult, because you're competing for attention with people who, for the most part, aren't having to consider the budgetary restraints in their models.

I think if you were really wanting to go down that route, it'd be better to take copies of LXF files and then extract brick version data programmatically. That would almost certainly be an easier approach than trying to work it out manually. Great work on the new index though, it's amazing to think back to when this thread first started, whoever could have imagined just how far it would come. :-)

Speaking personally, I think there is something different about large scale models like the Sopwith Camel than a minifig based theme. So, I'd have no issue with TLG producing a large scale Spitfire, for example, but a minifig scale Spitfire would be a whole different matter and definitely something I'd feel uncomfortable with. Even some of the IJ sets were skirting very close to the line and really only got away with it because that smiley/jokey minifig characteristic fits with the humorous nature of the IJ movies. Still I can't blame TLG for staying well away. They clearly aren't short of ideas for sets and themes, so what real advantage would it be for them to stray into such controversial territory?

Most likely someone was testing a way of auto-generating "supporters", with the intention of later trying it out on their own project. Picking a project like Nathan's to see how effectively it would be picked up if done in small bursts (after all it's a project quite likely to gain support, so if they hadn't spotted it that would be a good indication that there was some scope for getting away with it). I'd say it's pretty safe to say that Nathan himself didn't try cheat the system, he already has a very good relationship with TLG from his artwork anyway (in fact he could probably persuade TLG to release his model even without CuuSoo!)

The problem with doing that is that you need an authoritative source on every possible variation, which variations of parts were used in any given set and then comprehensive instructions on exactly how to distinguish the exact version of a part. And the more extensive such a database becomes, the more work is involved if some slightly different variant is discovered (because suddenly a whole bunch of previous classifications becomes highly dubious. And let's face it, even Bricklink occasionally contains set details which are a little bit off at times, despite having a much more limited classification system. When you consider that, as you say, there are at least 40 variations on a 2x4 brick, the work involved in going through even a moderately sized collection just becomes a monumental task. And if, the reason you're doing so is to sell them on, that almost inevitably results in either you having to sell them at extortionately high prices or to value your own time so little that you're never really reclaiming what you deserve for the effort put in. And of course it's all made worse by the fact only the strictest of purist is ever really going to care that they have the exact type of yellow 2x4 brick that would have been in the set originally (and for them it'd probably cheaper, easier and more reliable to track down a MISB than to put in any of the effort involved). I don't think a system to precisely identify LEGO parts will ever be practical until cheap, but accurate 3D scanners are ubiquitous and easily automated across a whole collection. And it would still require some pretty epic work to accurately accumulate details on older sets' part usage.