Introducing my LEGO Parts Guide, which is powered by images exported from LDraw.

[tom alphin]

A couple weeks ago, I asked about how to download the LDraw partlist so that I can include direct links to the LDraw website when people want to learn more about a specific part.

I am excited to announce that the initial release of my LEGO Parts Guide is live!

LINK: https://brickarchitect.com/parts/


What is the LEGO Parts Guide?
I aimed to create a well-organized, beautifully designed alternative to sites like Bricklink or Rebrickable when you just want to browse relatively common parts that are still being produced, without being bogged down in printed parts, extremely rare parts, or parts which retired two decades ago.



Learn about each category with a text description and a gallery of LEGO parts.


I built this initial version with two audiences in mind:

• Organizing your own collection — With just 13 top-level categories, it’s easy to get started in sorting your collection the Brick Architect way. As your collection continues to grow, sub-categories allow you to fine-tune your storage solution so you can find everything quickly.
  
• Understanding how LEGO works — As you explore the categories and sub-categories, the title and description for each folder teaches you about the various connection types, complex geometries, and other skills you need to learn on your road to a Master Builder.
  

Learn about each part on a dedicated page, with links to popular sites like Pick-a-Brick, Bricklink, Rebrickable, and LDraw to learn more.

This is also just the beginning — I’m eager to keep making this experience better by enhancing the page to learn more about each part, offering an easy way to print a LEGO Brick Label for a specific part, and adding more parts to the guide.


Right Now: Feedback Welcome!
This is one of the most knowledgeable and experienced communities of LEGO Parts Experts, so I would LOVE to hear your feedback on the experience I've built so far!  What would you like to see me change or add to make this a lot more valuable?




Looking Forward: Partnering well with the LDraw Community?
One experience that I have not built yet but will be building soon is a way to re-calculate the 'most common LEGO parts' on a daily basis. (My previous analysis was very slow to calculate, and I only updated it once or twice a year.)

The problem with a closer-to-realtime LEGO Parts Database is that I will run into more instances where an increasingly popular part doesn't have a 3d model in LDraw yet.  Because having a beautiful gallery of part images that are in a consistent style is a requirement for my site, I was wondering if it would be possible to automate the process of requesting new parts in LDraw?

For example: I could create a script that generates a csv containing a list of parts that are in the top 2000 most common LEGO parts, but are not available in LDraw yet.

Thoughts?  How can we collaborate better going forward?


Sincerely,
—Tom Alphin / brickarchitect.com

[Fredrik Hareide]

Wow! I absolutely love the idea and the execution! Great work! Also great work on the very popular labels!

Regarding what you ask I agree that technically that must be doable. But is there really a lot of common parts not available?

How did you calculate your previous most common, current parts?

[Philippe Hurbain]

Very nice, well organized parts guide!

I could create a script that generates a csv containing a list of parts that are in the top 2000 most common LEGO parts, but are not available in LDraw yet

I'd love to see this, always useful to know where to put our efforts the most efficiently possible!

[tom alphin]

How did you calculate your previous most common, current parts?

For my previous roughly annual "most common parts" calculations, I did the following:
1. Assumed that I purchased one of every set in the past 5 years and sorted all the pieces by part, then by color.
2. Ranking is a weighted function that takes both the sheer number of pieces for each part (irrespective of color) and the number of unique colors the part comes in.  I haven't looked at the actual algorithm in a long time, but I think logarithms are involved to squish the long-tail distribution down a bit.

Why logarithms and why take into account both sheer number and number of colors?
My goal is to identify the most useful parts for LEGO builders that want to create their own MOCs.  Especially given access to BrickLink and Pick A Brick, it doesn't really matter if a part is hard to get in a particular color, or only comes in a few sets... The goal is to highlight parts that 'matter' - so to speak.


I'm glad to hear that a script which outputs a list of the most common parts not currently in LDraw would be useful.  Once I re-create my weighted ranking system on the website, I will create an undocumented script for this group to highlight parts which might be missing from LDraw. 

(Parts will appear on that list for either of two reasons: It isn't in LDraw at all, or the Part Number used on Rebrickable doesn't match the LDraw part number. - Rebrickable is my source for set inventories.)

Thanks for the kind words about what I've built so far!
---tom

[Vincent Messenet]

Very nice work! I really like how easy it is to find a part you need.
I will definitely use it regularly.

[tom alphin]

Very nice, well organized parts guide!
I'd love to see this, always useful to know where to put our efforts the most efficiently possible!

I have created a first draft of a gallery for viewing those parts where an LDraw part might be missing.

• NOT IN LDRAW LINK: https://brickarchitect.com/parts/not-in-ldraw.php|
  
  
• Beta - MOST COMMON PARTS (All-time): https://brickarchitect.com/parts/most-common/  (not filtered to parts which might not be in LDraw)
  You can jump to next page by adding "?page=2" query string to the URL.
  

The "Not in LDraw" page will show you the top 2000 parts in my analysis of the most common LEGO parts of all time.  You can click on the tabs at the top of the page to switch how the results are sorted.

• Overall Rank is a weighted scoring based on # of pieces, # of sets, and # of colors.
  
• # pieces/sets/colors are pretty self explanatory.
  
• Years Produced shows the parts which were in production for the longest time, even if they are not very common overall.
  

All of this is based on the assumption that you bought one of every set ever released and sorted the parts by both part (to decide # pieces) and by part and color (to decide # colors).  

Sincerely,
— Tom Alphin


P.S: If you see an image in the left column, that's because I already created an image with a filename matching the rebrickable part number, even if there is a mismatch between rebrickable and LDraw.


P.S.S. This list is based on all-time most common parts.  I will be creating a similar view based on the most recent 5 years sometime soon (This will better represent the most common parts right now...)

[Willy Tschager]

NOT IN LDRAW LINK: https://brickarchitect.com/parts/not-in-ldraw.php|

The flaw of your list is that sometimes LDraw's numbering system differs from others:

https://rebrickable.com/parts/7049bc01/b...ed-inside/
https://library.ldraw.org/official/12084

https://rebrickable.com/parts/132a/tyre-...yle-small/
https://library.ldraw.org/official/15701

https://rebrickable.com/parts/73092/magnet-cylindrical/
https://library.ldraw.org/official/3370

https://rebrickable.com/parts/78c02/hose...-7mm-d-2l/
https://library.ldraw.org/official/12212

https://rebrickable.com/parts/78c09/hose...-7mm-d-9l/
https://library.ldraw.org/official/10319

https://rebrickable.com/parts/30294/rock...er-bottom/
https://library.ldraw.org/official/3225

https://rebrickable.com/parts/30293/rock-boulder-top/
https://library.ldraw.org/official/8372

https://rebrickable.com/parts/30362/leg-...chnic-pin/
https://library.ldraw.org/official/4387

...

Just a few ... then I got bored.

w.

[Philippe Hurbain]

Thanks, Tom! As noted by Willy, the numbering discrepancy makes the list a bit tricky to use. Maybe it could be improved by filtering it with the Rebrickable cross-reference?

[tom alphin]

Thanks, Tom! As noted by Willy, the numbering discrepancy makes the list a bit tricky to use. Maybe it could be improved by filtering it with the Rebrickable cross-reference?

Is there an established table of cross-references between LDraw and Rebrickable — I would love to integrate that into the table to make it more useful.   Unfortunately, this is not something provided in the Rebrickable dataset.  Is there a table on LDraw site containing these mappings which I could use?

---Tom

[Orion Pobursky]

Is there an established table of cross-references between LDraw and Rebrickable — I would love to integrate that into the table to make it more useful.   Unfortunately, this is not something provided in the Rebrickable dataset.  Is there a table on LDraw site containing these mappings which I could use?

---Tom

Rebrickable provides this in their API. It's what I use for the (currently broken for other reasons) LDCad PBG generator.
https://rebrickable.com/api/v3/swagger/?...parts_list

The biggest caveat is that Rebrickable doesn't break down minifig torso and leg assemblies like we do. Searching for torso and leg patterns usually won't return anything.

[N. W. Perry]

First off, I think this is a great project, and while there are a lot of existing parts databases, I do think this fills a need for something more curated, presented in more of a narrative style—somewhere in between the purely statistical format of a BL or RB, and the long-form narrative of blogs like NewE.

I like how the information is categorized. I'm always pleasantly surprised as I drill down through the hierarchy and find new information with each step. This, however, can also be a drawback, as there is useful information that can't always be found unless I go down through all the levels.

One thing that does raise my eyebrow is some of the nomenclature you've decided on—particularly when it's at odds with the official terminology. One example would be in the clip category, where you describe the clips as vertical where TLG refers to them as horizontal, and vice versa. For another example, you've adopted a more rigid definition of "arch" and "bow", such that there are parts officially described as "bows" that don't match your definition.

Granted, the TLG descriptions are far from consistent, and I appreciate the need for a more unified nomenclature. (I'm not sure whether the term "blate" will catch on, but I respect the intention.)  I just wonder if finding new uses for already existing terms might not cause more confusion than it eliminates?

Otherwise, again, I truly appreciate the effort behind creating a "handcrafted" resource—there's certainly potential to grow tremendously, and while it will require ongoing effort, I do think it will fill a meaningful void!

[tom alphin]

First off, I think this is a great project, and while there are a lot of existing parts databases, I do think this fills a need for something more curated, presented in more of a narrative style—somewhere in between the purely statistical format of a BL or RB, and the long-form narrative of blogs like NewE.

I like how the information is categorized. I'm always pleasantly surprised as I drill down through the hierarchy and find new information with each step. This, however, can also be a drawback, as there is useful information that can't always be found unless I go down through all the levels.

One thing that does raise my eyebrow is some of the nomenclature you've decided on—particularly when it's at odds with the official terminology. One example would be in the clip category, where you describe the clips as vertical where TLG refers to them as horizontal, and vice versa. For another example, you've adopted a more rigid definition of "arch" and "bow", such that there are parts officially described as "bows" that don't match your definition.

Granted, the TLG descriptions are far from consistent, and I appreciate the need for a more unified nomenclature. (I'm not sure whether the term "blate" will catch on, but I respect the intention.)  I just wonder if finding new uses for already existing terms might not cause more confusion than it eliminates?

Otherwise, again, I truly appreciate the effort behind creating a "handcrafted" resource—there's certainly potential to grow tremendously, and while it will require ongoing effort, I do think it will fill a meaningful void!

Thank you for the kind words!  I'm glad to hear that it feels like I am offering a unique, curated perspective into the wider world of LEGO parts...  This is definitely my goal!

I do think you raise some fair points around naming strategies, such as the arch/bow distinctions and the legitimate question around whether we need a convenient term for something two-plates tall  .  I am always considering ways to continue refining and simplifying the names used on my parts guide and label collection and will keep these points in mind.

In particular, I did not even realize the discrepancy between how TLG refers to horizontal/vertical clips.  My naming matches BrickLink, Rebrickable, and LDraw, which in practice means that it matches the community consensus.  In fact, one of my 'dreams' for this project is to finally motivate TLG to revisit the official part names since they are terrible, often misspelled, wildly inconsistent, and occasionally inappropriate (Some Mindoll part names literally say "ASS" which is an abbreviation for Assembly, but not a very appropriate term when referring to the bottom half of a female figure.)

Sincerely,
---tom



P.S. I launched a completely redesigned Most Common LEGO Parts guide last night - it uses this modern database-driven backend and integrates with the page dedicated to each piece.  This makes it possible to see at-a-glance the lifetime and 'current' ranking for every part in the guide.  I hope people love this addition!

[Rene Rechthaler]

Thats a nice list...

two annotations:
-why are all parts differently sizad and scaled? now they overlap and are sometimes pixelated if a small part is upscaled too much. maybe either define a standard size or scale.
-the list with missing parts includes a lot of flexible parts like rubber bands or strings and parts from exotic subfamilies of lego like scala/belville, Clikits or galidor, these parts are so special and strangely formed that it is hard to model them. (they are also used too rare to have a reason to model them)

[tom alphin]

Thats a nice list...

two annotations:
-why are all parts differently sizad and scaled? now they overlap and are sometimes pixelated if a small part is upscaled too much. maybe either define a standard size or scale.
-the list with missing parts includes a lot of flexible parts like rubber bands or strings and parts from exotic subfamilies of lego like scala/belville, Clikits or galidor, these parts are so special and strangely formed that it is hard to model them. (they are also used too rare to have a reason to model them)

Thank you for sharing feedback and letting me know that there is a potential issue on the site.

Can you share a screenshot here or email it to me at [email protected] - I am not seeing a high level of pixelation and I am not seeing parts overlapping.

In my LEGO Parts Guide, I have multiple views:

• The "Label" and "Table" views have small part images which are resized to fit the small size, which is why they are not to scale.
  
• The "Scale" view shows parts to scale with one another, but I'm not sure this format will work as well when viewing the Most Common Parts (since it isn't practical to show a bunch of data about each part in that format.)
  

Sincerely,
---tom

That said, I have considered adding the scale view to the Most Common Parts Guide - do you think that would be a useful addition?