|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce.moc, Simon Bennett wrote:
| |
Well done Lego. 4883 is even better than 4100. I think the 4x4 looks just
like a Land Rover Discovery.
So I had a bit of a play today and at the risk of seeming obsessed with
aviation tractors:
|
Nice looking tractor. Rear view please?
Does your camera have a “White Balance” option? If it does, you could probably
tweak it so that the red and grey look more natural.
Maybe we should do a competition for MOCs built from given Designer sets...
|
|
| |
For some reason, it never occurred to me before to decorate my home Christmas
tree all in LEGO ornaments (1). I didn’t go crazy, just a few designs, but the
overall impact was quite effective. Non-LEGO parts included: Tree, tree stand,
electric lights, candy canes, tinsel, thread (for the garland), and metal hooks.
But every ornament was 100 pure. (And of course there was a LEGO train around
the base of the tree!)
Merry Christmas!
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/6800
FUT: lugnet.fun.holiday
Rick Clark
(1) Although before I could post this or even finish creating the MOCPage, a
reviewer was kind enough to point out that “its been don dosens” of times, and
that my version “just was avrg.” But he declined to hose me, perhaps because of
the holiday season, which was very gracious.
|
|
| |
Hello all,
I saw set #4886 emerge on Shop at Home today. It says "Coming Soon on 18 Oct
2004" for Australia, New Zealand and the European S@H countries.
But for Canada and United States it read "Sorry, item is not available in this
country".
Does this mean that this set will be exclusive for "our side of the big pont"?
Has the European branch of Shop at Home started its own independend devellopment
programm for new sets? The explanation is likely to be more complicated than
this, it makes me very curious.
With friendly greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
[FUT lego.direct]
|
|
| |
In lugnet.basic, Stephane Simard wrote:
| |
Hello,
I’m looking for set 
| |
544 Universal Building Set
156 elements, 1 figure, US$9.50, 1981
LEGO > Universal
|
with box and instructions.
No one on BrickLink or eBay is selling it.
If you have it and want to sell it, please reply in this forum (the above
email address has been deactivated).
|
Cross post to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade
and lugnet.general
|
|
| |
Hello,
I’m looking for set
| |
544 Universal Building Set
156 elements, 1 figure, US$9.50, 1981
LEGO > Universal
|
with box and instructions.
No one on BrickLink or eBay is selling it.
If you have it and want to sell it, please reply in this forum (the above email
address has been deactivated).
|
|
| |
In lugnet.basic, Hao-yang Wang wrote:
> If you stack the orange 2x3 wedge on top of the red 2x4 wedge, you can get a
> thicker wing shell with a nice two-color scheme. However, I failed to make a
> good body contour with this design. Maybe I should try again.
I'd think you should be able to just match up the 2x ends, and maybe stick the
other two orange dots in front of the orange wedges.
> I actually like Lego's leg design from the instructions. It may not be
> suitable for a beetle, but if you take a look at <http://tolweb.org/tree?
> group=Arthropoda>, you will see that many critters have that kind of legs,
> for example, mites and lice.
Oh, I'm not saying that the pincer feet don't look cool. I just don't think
it's worth giving up the hinges completely to have four pincer-feet if the other
two legs are 1x3 slopes, which look pretty bad right next to the pincer-feet.
Your design has the advantage of making all six legs look similar to each other.
The only insect-like critters I've ever seen that have dissimilar legs like that
when the dissimilar legs aren't either for feeding or fighting are caterpillars,
but technically, every leg past the six right behind the head isn't really a leg
at all.
> On the other hand, I cannot figure out which end of Lego's bug is the head
> and which is the tail. What do you think?
The antennae are at the head. The "eyes" are spots on its back. I think they
might have been leaning towards a ladybug with the design.
> I discovered that the hinge pieces make a nice pair of stag horns, albeit in
> a wrong color, so I proceeded and made a dragon with them.
Yeah, they're nice and stiff, so they don't flop around. I've never really
understood why the plate and brick versions are so different in that regard.
> Then I ran out of parts to make a good, hinged body, let alone the menacing
> claws. The part selection of the X-Pods can be very frustrating.
Indeed. Based on personal experience (specifically, making a minifig go-cart
from the Auto-Pod without a steering wheel), I think it might make a good
contest to an X+1 MOC, where you can add any single piece of your own choosing
to the parts included in an X-Pod.
> A bunch of mini-figs can staff the dragon on sticks and walk it in a new year
> parade.
Hah! That would look sweet. All you'd need are a few vertical clips and
lightsaber blades staggered on either side. I have a friend who's currently
teaching in Japan, and I bet something like that sitting on his desk would be
really popular with the other teachers.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.basic, David Laswell wrote:
> The beetle (is that a stag-horn?) looked like the one from
> the instructions, but I see now that it's not the case. I somewhat
> prefer their fatter body design, but you leg design is much better
> (using hinge pieces on the pincer-feet is a waste of good parts if you
> have to use slope bricks for the last two).
I originally wanted to make a rhinoceros beetle, but then I ran out of parts
from 4349 to make a convincing horn for it.
If you stack the orange 2x3 wedge on top of the red 2x4 wedge, you can get a
thicker wing shell with a nice two-color scheme. However, I failed to make a
good body contour with this design. Maybe I should try again.
I actually like Lego's leg design from the instructions. It may not be suitable
for a beetle, but if you take a look at
<http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Arthropoda>, you will see that many critters have
that kind of legs, for example, mites and lice.
On the other hand, I cannot figure out which end of Lego's bug is the head and
which is the tail. What do you think?
> The scorpion is a wonderfully unusual choice for the Robo-pod, but I
> think it'd look stingy-er if you replaced the 2x2 slope with the black
> jumper plate and one of the 1x2 slopes.
What a good idea! Thanks.
> My favorite, though, has to be the dragon. Everyone seems keen on
> the idea of making western dragons (probably because the wedge pieces
> make good wings), but I hadn't even considered the possibility of making
> an easter dragon with that selection of parts. It reminds me a lot of
> Mushu from Mulan.
I discovered that the hinge pieces make a nice pair of stag horns, albeit in a
wrong color, so I proceeded and made a dragon with them. Then I ran out of parts
to make a good, hinged body, let alone the menacing claws. The part selection of
the X-Pods can be very frustrating.
A bunch of mini-figs can staff the dragon on sticks and walk it in a new year
parade.
Thanks for the comments and suggestions,
Hao-yang Wang
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce.moc, Hao-yang Wang wrote:
> I just uploaded a bunch of my X-Pod creations
The beetle (is that a stag-horn?) looked like the one from the instructions, but
I see now that it's not the case. I somewhat prefer their fatter body design,
but you leg design is much better (using hinge pieces on the pincer-feet is a
waste of good parts if you have to use slope bricks for the last two).
The scorpion is a wonderfully unusual choice for the Robo-pod, but I think it'd
look stingy-er if you replaced the 2x2 slope with the black jumper plate and one
of the 1x2 slopes. And the shrimp is a good way to get double-duty out of the
scorpion design.
My favorite, though, has to be the dragon. Everyone seems keen on the idea of
making western dragons (probably because the wedge pieces make good wings), but
I hadn't even considered the possibility of making an easter dragon with that
selection of parts. It reminds me a lot of Mushu from Mulan.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.basic, Neb Okla wrote:
>
> "William Howard" <william@howard-family.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:HrnJxq.1I1C@lugnet.com...
> > The 4 X-Pod sets (4346 to 4349) are now on sale in the UK
>
> Are they "on sale" or are they "for sale"?
That's an interesting prepositional conundrum.
Technically, in both UK and US English, it's "on sale" just to
indicate that something is now available from a supplier that
was not available at first. But "for sale" seems to be used
as well--interchangably, sure, but only in tandem with certain
constructions.
So I suppose "now available at" would be less confusing; they're
not "on sale" in the discount sense. Perhaps "on sale" is used
more commonly in the UK, but I hear it used all the time in the
US and Canada in the same non-discount sense.
Strange, that.
best
LFB
|
|
|
