Zobaczcie - nowy design płomieni, właśnie nori znalazł go w nowym zestawie 10199 Winter Toy Shop. Po lewej nowy wzór, po prawej - stary.
Zwróćcie uwagę na brak dwóch małych wypustek przy podstawie. Nie da się połączyć dwóch płomieni! Mówimy więc żegnaj takiej technice:
Drogie LEGO, dlaczego?
Masz newsa? Zgłoś tutaj!
HI.In the intrent there is a big lego city.City is divided into 2 districts.first of them is medieval, and the second is modern. The city has a subway(underground tube).population is 300 man. Pictures
http://images.mocpages.com/user_images/69057/1323628312m_SPLASH.jpg
Moja wersja Pogromców Mitów. Tylko Jamnie nosi czarny kapelusz, a mój ma biały 
Witam,
Na stronie http://www.brickset.com pojawiły się już zestawy na 2012 rok
Pozdrawiam
DARON
Bill Bailey o Lego
Notki
1 listopada 2009 23:00
Powinno się wystosować petycję/list otwarty do projektantów LEGO,
tak nie można !!!
1 listopada 2009 23:02
Mamy ambasadora, wyslemy go z misją…
2 listopada 2009 4:56
Honestly, if you weren’t an advanced AFOL using multi-flame techniques, those tabs were just odd. Are they supposed to be pointing a certain way? What do I do with them? The new flame will be simpler and easier to understand for most builders.
2 listopada 2009 15:08
As the two bars had just one purpose (In the official LEGO building ways), nameley to connect the flame to the long gone Dragon, these two bars are absolutley useless these days. The new bar makes it possible to connect the Flame to more bricks than it used to because these tips were in the way. Try to put the old flame in a crossaxle hole.
As the connection of the flame like shown on the picture is “illegal” in the LEGO way anyhow, we didn’t loose anything.
And for those guys who cry for the old thing now. Go on Bricklink, these Flames aren’t rare or sought after, so as for today they don’t cost a dime. Get yourself enough to make this crazy swirl and stop whining.
2 listopada 2009 16:39
Good and bad.
For some time now I’ve had a couple of the old-style ones which I cut the tabs off to make them more useful, but they did get stuck occassionally.
On Bricklink most stores have 100+ flames at around 3 cents each, so no complaining from my end.
Not a big fan of the printing/moulding though.
2 listopada 2009 19:42
Zumbi> I don’t buy your corporate lingo, Mister. You may call it illegal, for me this is a core feature your company is intentionally dropping. I have the right to be upset.
Why didn’t you guys redesigned the flame so it can be stackable and “legal”? Stud + stud-size curve might do the work.
2 listopada 2009 21:18
Because somebody decided that we want to keep it as is, just have more possibilities to build with it. It’s not a bad design, but the two things were just pointles since we have nothing they would fit on, and annoying because we couldn’t put the flame ino some bricks, which made it impossible to build some cool things that might come out now as the Flame has ben redone. So actually you-the fans loose one feature, that we over here wouldn’t use anyhow, because we can’t, and for us it’s not a core feature, just plain annoying, and we gain many new possibilities.
Besides, by changing it as you suggest would annoy you aswell, wouldn’t it? I mean, then you don’t have this piece anymore, so basically it would be exactly the same siuation…
Personally I still think that really every AFOL has so many of the old flame that hey might swirl themselves crazy with them, so why cry about it?
2 listopada 2009 21:20
1) nowy płomień nie ma “pęcherza” - jamy skurczowej powstałej w wyniku zmniejszania się objętości z przechodzenia z fazy ciekłej do stałej.
2) Nie wiem, jak to wygląda w rzeczywistości - ale na fotce, stary płomień ma wyraźne przesunięcie połówek formy względem siebie - przesunięcie.
Te kółka na obu płomieniach - to ślad po wypychaczach - sworznie te wypychają odlew z formy. Nota bene, ostatnio nagminnie używane w produkcji.
cdn
2 listopada 2009 21:38
So, if it is illegal, why was it there?
I think, that Lego are going to cut the cost, not to improve parts…
2 listopada 2009 21:58
NOOOOOO! It can’t be!
2 listopada 2009 22:00
cd.:
3) Jedyne właściwe doprowadzenie plastiku do elementu o takim kształcie - eliminacja jamy skurczowej. Zależności (teorii) na ten temat nie będę wykładać - bo po co? Może kiedyś.
) Przelew. Pojawienie się plastiku w przelewie świadczy o 100% wypełnieniu wnęki formy plastikiem oraz ułatwia wyprowadzenie powietrza z wnęki (mógłbym pójść po bandzie i oprzeć to o skrócenie czasu potrzebnego do zalania - ale nie jestem tego pewny).
4) Nowy otwór w formie! (wymiana form?
5) Ha! Widzicie? Transowa pomarańcza nie ma przesunięcia - herbaciana tak!
Przyczyna zmiany technologii?
Cięcie kosztów.
Dołożenie dodatkowego wypychacza powoduje, eliminację dodatkowego czasu (nakładu energii) na usunięcie elementu z formy. Wypychany element po drodze utrąca “sobie” wlew i przelew.
2 listopada 2009 22:11
@ Pirek: Because it was mounted on th green dragon back in the days! The fact that these things fit between the flames is just a plain coincidence that AFOLS made a use of. Just like the fact that the old small lever fits in the clip, that bicycle wheels fit in the small sinkmark in the 1×1 plate with a clip or the top of the 1×2 hinge brick, or minifig hands that fit into the flex tubes, or levers that fit between the grilles in the 1×2 grilled tile and so on. Turning LEGO tires inside out is a nice feature you use alot, but it is not intended, hence, loosing that would’nt chnage anything for the official LEGO building ways (whatever the reason for a change might be), but would change something for you. Just see how many possibilities you have to force bricks, levers and things into a minifig body. None of these things was intended, and loosing any of thes wouldn’t chnage anything to us.
Cutting the cost by loosing these two tiny thingies?
2 listopada 2009 22:14
BTW. The new flame features a lip so it can’t be pushed too far into some bricks, that lip uses more plastic than these two pins…
3 listopada 2009 13:47
[...] http://www.e-klocki.com/2009/11/01/dear-lego-now-you-screwed-up-the-flames/ [...]
4 listopada 2009 1:25
Misterzumbi>
“So actually you-the fans loose one feature, that we over here wouldn’t use anyhow, because we can’t, and for us it’s not a core feature, just plain annoying, and we gain many new possibilities.”
OK, fair said. I still don’t like your decision but at least I understand why, thanks.
“Besides, by changing it as you suggest would annoy you aswell, wouldn’t it? I mean, then you don’t have this piece anymore, so basically it would be exactly the same siuation…”
No, not at all. I’m a reasonable man. I did not whined about new hinges. You were keeping the feature, just changing design. I would accept any solution that would allow making long, curly flames. You guys knew most of AFOLs are using this trick. You could do design new piece better , but you just did not.
Sure. I will get my flames from Bricklink and get over it. But if you are planning new flame color, this will piss me off again
“Just like the fact that the old small lever fits in the clip, that bicycle wheels fit in …”
Believe it or not, but I thought at least some of these are intentional!
4 listopada 2009 16:53
:-/ Nie mam zdania! Te płomienie tak się zmieniały tzn. kolory. A taka opcja zmienia bieg rzeczy. Zestaw mam w planach i może go kupie bo mi takie płomienie różnicy nie robią ale technika łączenia ich była super! Allegro i Bl tam zawsze będą stare plomienie ^^
5 listopada 2009 21:15
Z jednej strony szkoda, z drugiej taki ogień przyda się jako ogień wyjściowy, bo tego z połączeniami nie da sie wszędzie wepchnąć.
7 listopada 2009 1:19
Nie rozpaczajcie, panowie AFOLE i pamiętajcie - kto nie sieje, ten nie zbiera! Róbcie zapasy!
Ale to mnie do dzisiaj dziwi: jak połączyś te płomienie??????????????
7 listopada 2009 20:27
wystarczy wsadzic wypuski końcowe płonienia do pierwszego zaokraglenia płomienia po prawej i good .
29 stycznia 2011 2:43
.:’ I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives up to date information :..