Review: 21335 Motorised Lighthouse

It really looks like a test build inside when the designer would argue "we make it look nice at the end" because he had to use whatever color the piece had he just needed for the construction.

The price is just insane especially compared to the already way too expensive 10268 which also had battery, motor and some cabling in a long structure. But that one was just 175 EUR.

@Huw said:
" @graafderk said:
""The chunky battery box is a bit of an overkill for this application, but it's the only one currently produced for the Powered Up system."
What happened to the battery box used in the City Trains (6370369) ?"

That needs to be hooked up to an app via Bluetooth to be operated, I believe."

They do have a remote (88010) that does not need an app.. the app gives you more sounds which for trains is great!

Bummer that the light isn't very bright. Any idea of how long this can run on typical NiMH batteries?

@Huw

Am I right in thinking that the light itself is fixed, and the fresnel assembly rotates around it?
Otherwise the cable would become twisted in no time.

Interesting and there are some clever build techniques, yet I'm put off because to me it doesn't have a LEGO 'look' about it. It almost verges on being a generic model which is a little off-putting.

Really love this set, It's clean enough for my SO to allow it downstairs (: Bit bummed by the price and the shaping of the rock. I loved the super dramatic shape of the original set.

Might buy it, if inflation doesn't kill my budget in the next few months...

Great review. It would've been fun for Lego to have included a molded whale piece to have playing off the coast of the lighthouse...or more dolphins. Either one would've made it just that much more extra special.

As for the argument of stickers, how does it make sense to make 5 stickers an one primed piece? Why even bother with the one printed piece and go cheaper with 6 stickers? LEGO is weird.

It looks great but it’s pricey, and I don’t know if the niche interest in lighthouses is going to be enough for it viably. My little brother wants it, but that was before the price announcement, so idk if my family will ever see it

Great review, thanks! I already liked the set when it was revealed, and this only confirms that first impression, maybe even makes me like it more. It's not perfect, but no real biggies.

I think they could have done a bit more with the inside of the house, to start with a tiled floor which might have reflected the light of the stove a bit more. And obviously something to sit on. Even for how small it is, it looks somewhat empty. Besides that the only real complaint are the stickers in such an expensive set. Luckily there aren't many and most aren't even that necessary. And indeed, a few more seagulls should have been included. Or how about some puffins?

I do still think it's overpriced, but not at a level some discounts can't solve. So maybe....

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"But the bottom line is: if you can't see it when it's finished, why worry?"Because a bit too often you actually CAN see it when it's finished. They seem to have done a good job this time, but all too often they haven't.

And while to some extent I can understand why they do it as long as it stays invisible, but too often they overdo it. With 21317 probably the worst offender ever. Could anyone keep a straight face when opening that box?

I just bought 10497 this afternoon, and I already know that it only use those few old school colors (and bley) on the inside. Should I expect an extremely complicated build now since it doesn't use at least 42 different colors?

@sammy_zammy said:
" @Koend1999 said:
"Stop the constant whining and complaining about stickers. LEGO will never make all prints. Why? Because they have a policy to have a max number of different bricks in production at the same time. Which is completely understandable given the logistical challenges of introducing new pieces. And since every print is technically a new piece, each printed piece carries a significant cost and would lead to removal of another piece. "

Tbf I think with Ideas it’s a reasonable complaint. Lego Ideas used to ALWAYS use prints, for every set. It’s OK that’s not the case anymore but I think it’s OK to be disappointed by that too.

Then again, Ideas has clearly changed in recent years. It used to not have new moulds, have a max piece count of 2000, and not be so consistently expensive. In 2017, the £140 Old Fishing Store was the most expensive set so far, and was the exception, not the norm!"

This is because of bricklink designer program they saw that big sets are selling very well...

Thank you for the thorough review, Huw. It certainly is a compelling set, and it will be interesting to see how the set fairs over the next couple of years. I hope it does well as it is clever and the designers have done a good job.

This set has no business costing more than $150 USD. The Vestas Windturbone was $200 and was a much bigger set(two lights, batter box, motor included). This is a "rethink Lego as a company" moment*.

*$35 75332, $45 60345 USD

Thanks @Huw, Great and thorough review as always and thanks for posting so quickly as I was eager to know how it worked and what sort of mirror element it has. Given the nature of the set and the fact the you commented about the brightness it would be really interesting to see if you were able to take any good pictures or video of it working in the dark or low light. I guess the thing about lighthouses is that they need to be bright enough to highlight the rocks they are above not act as a searchlight or actually illuminate anything else so wondering if in the dark it will still feel true to life for the relative scale?

The set looks nice but I don't see the reasoning behind the price. The lens is a new piece and there are some nice recolors, but that is all standard fare content and most sets of that type came out to an average below 10 cents per piece. Even subtracting the electric parts, it is at least 40$ overpriced. And to that overpricing I will have to factor in my existing piece collection, that tells me that I could build this same structure out of a purchase of about 120$ at worst additionally to my collection of common and garbage parts. I think I rather do that and alter the design of the set a bit with different colors and such.

Nice review - great to see a close-up of the mechanism and lighting effects. Overall, I think it's an improvement over the original Ideas submission. While I'm not a huge fan of microscale stuff, that wouldn't have been a dealbreaker.

As I see it, the original submission suffered from scale/proportion issues. The tower dwarfed the house, but the lantern room seemed to better-fit the structure. The production set has better proportions between the tower and house, but the lantern room is too tall, IMO. Also needs more seagulls.

In the end, looks like I'll be sticking with my modded, 2x 31051 with a flashing 3rd party LED.

Gorgeous, but... money. About $100 too much for me.

Looks great on display but if the light is dim? Then it kinda defeats the higher price with motorized functions.
I’ll wait on this and maybe a third party has a brighter light to go with this?

Oh yes!!! The return of the, to me, much needed 1x2 tile in earth green. Thank you Lego! These are certainly welcome through BnP eventually considering the ridiculous Bricklink prices. That makes me happy. The set looks nice but I have an abundance of light houses from other themes already.

Does anyone with an understanding of Powered Up know if you can connect an additional set of the lights used? If I could figure out how to route and hide the cables I'd like to illuminate some floors of the lighthouse or maybe have an extra light in the cottage. Thanks.

Is it feasible to place both LED lights into the mechanism, without too much redesign?

@poshhammer said:
"Just wanna jump in and say this is never the case. Whenever there are bright colours inside models its always to reduce search time when building/avoid confusion with similar looking elements, not because of overstock. "

So what you are saying is that TLG thinks their customers are so stupid, that they need that kind of help.

Searching for the part, checking the correct location, putting it in, going happily to the next step is one of the joys of building with bricks. This is ruined when even a 4 years old could build this without thinking because everything is simplified to the easiest.

Ok, I saw Huw's video of the light.
It's good. And it was in a room, daylight still coming into room. Room wasn't that dark and the lighthouse light looked good, bright in that condition so it'd be much brighter at night and the house was lit up too.
I think it's good then.

@Huw said:
" @bricksintheattic said:
"Does anyone with an understanding of Powered Up know if you can connect an additional set of the lights used? If I could figure out how to route and hide the cables I'd like to illuminate some floors of the lighthouse or maybe have an extra light in the cottage. Thanks."

Unfortunately not, the battery box has just two outputs and lights can't be doubled up. You'd be better off replacing the components with Power Functions parts, whose connectors can be stacked."

Many thanks, Huw. I thought I remembered something along those lines about Powered Up.

@Huw so the "mirror" is a sticker. Is it good enough or would have a metallic reflective piece better transmitted the light?

Great review and superb photography as always Huw

@Boettner_Builds said:
"As for the argument of stickers, how does it make sense to make 5 stickers an one primed piece? Why even bother with the one printed piece and go cheaper with 6 stickers? LEGO is weird."

From what I understand, when they make any new parts or in this case a print, they look to see if that print graphic can be used again and again in other models and kits. Something useful and reusable.

@morvit said:
"There should be a poll asking if we prefer this set to be $100 less with no battery/motor features, or with the features."

But the tech isn't even $100!

@Koend1999:
Most of the two-tone lighthouses I’ve seen have been black and white, but red and white do exist. Regardless of which color scheme, they tend to be horizontally banded, rather than having spiral stripes. Cape Hatteras is a rare exception, but it’s B/W.

@ResIpsaLoquitur:
Or 3) when they use an even smaller coral part as the brain inside a much larger Minion? Anyways, my philosophy on this is that, as long as it is completely hidden, I don’t really care what colors they use on the inside (but it better not peek through the cracks!). On a MOC, when possible, I will make sure the color of every part makes sense for the build, to the point of even buying a $10 dinosaur just to get a pair of orange 1x1 Technic bricks that I buried under the hood of a 6-wide car.

@poshhammer:
I know of a few other reasons for bright colors inside of official sets. Designers hail from all over the world, and many like to insert national flag colors in their designs. SW set designers try to sneak pink in because they have a standing rule that the team gets cake if someone designs a set that uses a pink element. And I always try to squeeze a purple element into my MOCs, so I would be surprised if nobody sneaks in a favorite color outside of the two preceding examples.

@Boettner_Builds:
It depends on the part. Minifigs get a lot of wear and tear, so they’re almost always printed (ironically, Mario code tiles are pre-stickered for precisely the same reason). Radar dishes get prints because the compound curves cause stickers to pleat. Certain elements get stickers because, while legitimately possible to apply them properly, the size and/or shape makes it less likely than winning the lottery. Common designs will always be prints because it’s economical to do so. Certain key details may be printed because they’re so critical to the look of the set (Chima Legend Beasts had lots of stickers for skin and fur patterns, or claws, but the faces were all printed, while Speed Champions has shifted to making all headlights either brick-built or printed, and I believe car manufacturer logos are another major exception). Brickheadz almost exclusively uses prints because, with zero minifigs to suck up their new element slots, they can afford to burn as many as they want on custom prints like the bacon tile.

@Darth_Dee:
In a real lighthouse, the light is constant-on. Around the light is a rotating frame that’s divided up into facets. Each facet either contains a fresnel lens or something to block the light. As this rotates around, the light flashes in a repeating pattern that can be used to identify the source of the light, and therefor your location. The practical result of all of this is that most lighthouses actually cast multiple beams, one for each fresnel lens around the light source. Popular belief, as reinforced by the entertainment industry, is that each lighthouse projects a single beam of light, or maybe two that are at 180° to each other. Almost no movies or tv shows seem to include the coded pattern.

@Mechalex:
I used to be able to hear the foghorn from where I grew up, but these days they seem to be obsolete. In the US, even lighthouses have largely been decommissioned by the federal government, and either dismantled or sold off to public interest groups (local towns, museums, historical societies, etc), and a few have even been sold to private hands for use as a residence. GPS has basically taken over their purpose, and it works in any weather, plus the cost of operation has been pushed off onto the Pentagon (GPS satellite network) and private citizens (individual GPS receivers).

@OptimShi said:
"Does LEGO still suffer from white bricks turning yellow over time? As much as I like the look of this, I fear it will look terrible like my white and yellow Saturn V 21309 rocket does over time."

Yellowing still happens, but in this case I think a tan job could still fit the subject and color scheme.

@sjr60:
Oh, geez, if they had a searchlight-bright light in a lighthouse that was visible from shore, they’d have local beachside residents up in arms. Imagine trying to go to sleep when your curtains keep catching on fire every two seconds.

@PDelahanty:
Nothing to do with me. I’ve got my own lighthouse design. Well, technically several designs for the same lighthouse from where I grew up. I’ve already built one nanoscale vignette in full color, plus I have the original white color scheme in B/W in LDraw. I have additional LDraw designs for a microscale color version of just the lighthouse and a bit of pier, two minifig-scale sunset bignettes, and one freestanding minifig-scale version that I could include in a layout with a variable amount of pier (in minifig scale, I think i calculated that I’d need more than 20’ of table to accurately depict the pier, so that ain’t happening). Cost is an even bigger issue than for this. Both of the bignettes clock in at around 4000pcs, and to do even a few feet of the pier for a layout version would be at least that amount. The original vignette I’d like to turn into a series, showing some sunset versions, a wave crashing over the top of the lighthouse roof, encrusted in literal tons of ice from waves crashing over it during winter, and even the original box-on-stilts that the current version replaced.

@Huw:
The Bluetooth connection is also a liability at public shows, where every man, woman, and child probably has an open Bluetooth connection clogging up the airwaves from their pocket.

@Pollywanna:
The Detective’s Office got a real mirror because the piece they chromed was officially classified as a “fabric” element. If it was a regular element, chrome never would have been allowed.

@_Brickarolo_:
Vestas also had a uniformly shaped stick for its base. This has a tapered tower. I’ve designed one, and it’s a lot trickier to make look good than a cylinder worn parallel sides. Mine doesn’t even have any room for an interior, so what they did here is even more impressive.

Way too expensive for an ideas set, even with the motor. Would rather have no motor and be $200 to $220.

I love this set I think it looks great!, I think I would only add maybe a crab or 2, another seagull or 2 and another white flame parts to the other hole in the chimney

@Huw said:
"It's impressive enough but as you can see in the video it doesn't project the beam onto the walls as it rotates."

But that's not really what lighthouses *do*. They exist to be seen from a distance as a blinking or flashing light, not to act as searchlights or spotlights (sailors would probably be blinded, and folks living near them on shore would not appreciate that either!). So to me, as long as the light is clearly visible within the top of the structure, it's following its proper function nicely.

That said, yeah, it'd be kinda cool if it did shine a light around the walls if that's what folks want, but I'm more excited after seeing that video than I was before!

@Mechalex said:
" @VaultDweller_197 said:
" @Huw said:
" @graafderk said:
""The chunky battery box is a bit of an overkill for this application, but it's the only one currently produced for the Powered Up system."
What happened to the battery box used in the City Trains (6370369) ?"

That needs to be hooked up to an app via Bluetooth to be operated, I believe."

They do have a remote (88010) that does not need an app.. the app gives you more sounds which for trains is great! "

Ooh, this set could have had a foghorn/shrieking of seagulls!"

Yes! Some soothing ocean sounds! What a missed opportunity!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHZEvGyRPDs

@_Lane_:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p-3e0EkvIEM

Also, if you can see the light, it will project onto a wall placed at your back. It might not be any more perceptible than “daytime” on Pluto, but scientific instruments exist that can identify exo-planets by the amount of light they block as as they pass in front of their stars. From a high vantage point, especially during foggy weather, you can see that lighthouses do project beams of light, but it’s a bit counterproductive for a beacon that helps keep sailors off the rocks to blind them as they’re trying to navigate in the dark.

Thanks for the great review, especially for showing the constructions inside the base!

Since the rotating-beam-of-light function adds massively to the cost, and (if you're honest with yourself!) will only be used very rarely, why not boycott this overpriced tall, mostly white, LEGO set and spend much less money on a different tall, mostly white, LEGO set:

92176 (21309) is twice the height & less than half the price.

I think it is a really nice set and an improvement on the original submission. However, I don't think I am likely to get it because I just don't have space for it.

Question for parts nerds: is this the first time a baseplate has been used for something that isn't a modular or modular compatible set since the 10268 Vestas turbine re-release in 2018?

I also notice that that set had a ppp ratio of 19.4p/21.2c.

@bananaworld said:
"Great point! At the very least this needs a rechargeable battery. We all walk around all day with rechargeable batteries in our pockets; we're used to the idea of plugging things in to charge them. I'd love to see a dedicated 1x2 brick with a USB-C socket and a cable out the back to plug into a battery box."
On the one hand, I very much agree. Rechargeable batteries would be so much more efficient and convenient. I got my nephews some Light Stax a few years ago, while not perfect that works so well.

However, there is a downside to that: batteries don't last forever. And even if you could replace them, will the same type still be available? Normal batteries: very much yes, those have hardly changed in the last half a century (at least not form factor). But anything slightly special.....that's a different story.

I love that I can still grab my old 80's Lego (or Fischertechnik or some other stuff), put some batteries in it and it still works!

Now this might be less of an issue with Control+ hub, as that is very much a throwaway system that becomes obsolete once app support stops (or your last compatible device dies....probably because of its battery!), but that's no problem with the "dumb" battery box.

Now there might be some middle ground: add a connector to the battery box so you could charge the batteries without taking them out. Though it's easy to spot the major issue here: how to prevent someone from charging non-rechargeable batteries?

The one thing I would love to see change though is that the battery box is priced like the dumb lump of plastic it is, instead of like the most advanced power system on the planet....

@OptimShi said:
"Does LEGO still suffer from white bricks turning yellow over time? As much as I like the look of this, I fear it will look terrible like my white and yellow Saturn V 21309 rocket does over time."

Wacky thought: older lighthouses are going to look weatherbeaten over time. Maybe a yellowed lighthouse is a feature instead of a bug? (OK, probably not. The bigger concern would be the bricks getting brittle over time.)

I will say that all the Stormtroopers I've had sitting out for a few years are still sparkling white. I've got a 2000s era Stormtrooper who's pretty yellowed, but the ones from the last decade are still pristine.

Great review, and because I happen to have the last few flagships, a really nice lighthouse is exactly what I want and this fits perfectly. It really is a very beautiful model.

However, this set needs to be in stores, not Lego or exclusive to the likes of Amazon, so that we at least get a chance at a discount, because at full price, as beautiful as it is, it's not worth it.

Watching that video I am quite impressed with the light brightness actually. In the video the room is quite lit up still, so you don't get the full effect of the lighthouse light. Maybe if it were a dark room you could appreciate how bright it is. *shrug*

As for the set, thanks for the review. I think it delivers a lot more interest compared to just looking at pictures. I still think it is too much for me, so I won't be getting it. But the build process looks well done and interesting. It looks like a well thought out set. Clever they made it functional, although I would like it to be just a tad slower, but I guess that isn't that big of a deal.

Lore, Part the Second!

Weird as it sounds, the lake I grew up near is, by size, perhaps the most dangerous body of water in the world. The Great Lakes in general were treacherous for early sailors because they never really spent much time away from the coast. Lake Michigan in particular is the worst of the bunch. It’s a long, slender lake that runs almost straight N/S, with winds that tend to blow W/E across it, meaning that ships were constantly being driven into the Michigan coastline. Lake Michigan claimed 1500 known shipwrecks, from only about four centuries of seafaring, which is about 1/4 of the known shipwrecks across the five Great Lakes.

Chicago burned down. While this has been, perhaps unfairly, blamed on a cow, the important thing relating to this article is that they had to rebuild, and that requires construction materials. Anywhere there was a river that emptied into Lake Michigan, lumber operations were established to send wood to Chicago. Once the land was clear of timber around the rivers, many people decided to stay and establish permanent communities. The rivers proved useful for shipping freight in and out, but the weather in the Great Lakes region make navigation dangerous. Hundreds of lighthouses were built along the coastlines of all five Great Lakes, making the region the greatest concentration of lighthouses in the world. Michigan alone had over 150 lighthouses at its peak, which is more than most coastal nations (excluding the US and Canada, obviously).

Maintaining and operating these was expensive. There are photos of my hometown’s lighthouse wearing a beard of several tons of ice, as winter storms caused waves to crash over the full 35’ height, basically growing sideways stalactites, which can slowly crush the cast iron walls, especially around the base of the structure. GPS eventually proved a more reliable navigation aide (to place yourself on a map during a storm, you have to put yourself in harm’s way to find and identify one or more lighthouses, where GPS can track your location in real time), and the US government began taking lighthouses offline.

Two dozen Michigan lighthouses have been lost forever, being dismantled to prevent them from posing a hazard as they fell into disrepair. All but four Michigan lighthouses (including my hometown’s) have had their catwalks torn down (during storm surges, the lighthouse keepers could leave their light-keeper’s house located back from the shore, climb a set of stairs to the catwalk, and “safely” walk to their charge, elevated above the worst of the waves). Of those four, only two retain operational catwalk lights (members of my high school graduating class ran the first of two campaigns to save our catwalk lights), which make them incredibly popular for sunset photography. Many of these communities survive on tourism, and their lighthouses are always a major draw for visitors. As the first few were being torn down, local groups began petitioning the government to sell them the lighthouses for preservation. It can be difficult for tiny resort towns to fund restoration projects that can run into six and seven figure bills, but losing their lighthouses can have long term detrimental effects on communities that depend on tourism to pump money into their economies, and lighthouses are often one-of-a-kind beacons that draw those tourists in.

Lighthouses tend to be built only as need is established, so they’re not really suited to mass production. Still, many cast iron Great Lakes lighthouses look like they used a common design. My hometown’s lighthouse is even known to be a shorter version of a design used a few hundred miles away. 119 years ago, the current lantern room was even transferred from that lighthouse, where it had already served four decades.

@Paperdaisy:
Excluding actual Modulars, sets of similar design (specifically Ninjago City trio), 1pc baseplate packs, and (let’s be fair) the Bricklink Designer Program, here’s all the sets that have used 32x32 baseplates since 2018:

2018
40198 LEGO Ludo Game

2022
2000430-2 Serious Play Identify and Landscape Kit (2022 version)

Serious Play is also the only set since 2018 to use a 48x48, and it has a stack of 16x32’s.

Now, I know the Chinese Lantern Festival is able to connect to the Modular sets. What I don’t know about is the Marvel buildings (specifically the Daily Bugle or Sanctum Santorum) or Harry Potter’s Diagon Alley.

The other two common sizes haven’t been used since 2014 (16x16) or 2013 (8x16), and I assume the less common sizes (8x8, 8x24, 8x32, any dimension not using multiples of 8) has been out of production for years.

@LinuxBrickie:
There’s a simple solution to that. Stop holding a bus ticket in front of your eyes while trying to navigate rough seas at night. Lighthouses are meant to be seen from a distance, not make it easier to see their surroundings. They don’t put out thousands of lumens.

@bananaworld:
@WizardOfOss:
With an empty battery box, you always have the option of rechargeable AA, AAA, or 9v batteries, depending on the style of box.

@sjr60 said:
" @bananaworld said:
"spend much less money on a different tall, mostly white, LEGO set: 92176 (21309) is twice the height & less than half the price."
Deal breaker... It doesn't have a seagull."

Ah, but you'd have loadsa money leftover to spend here:

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=12891pb01T=S&C=1&O={%22color%22:1,%22iconly%22:0}

Good review, I do like how you guys show the overall, then the build. I am sure if i was into collecting the City type of theme, I would get this as it is unique and adds that touch to your layout and added feature that will add a "wow" factor.

If you consider this set as a City instead of an Ideas set, and given how immensely overpriced recent City sets have been lately (especially in the US), does this actually bring the price into line after allowing for the cost of the electric components? :-)

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"Open question: why is there always a complaint about bright colors hidden on the inside of a set that, once completed, will be completely hidden?

But the bottom line is: if you can't see it when it's finished, why worry?"

For realism: I don't know about lighthouses but for my subject area (Technic), as far as I'm concerned, all internal mechanisms ought to be seen, and I have never seen a construction vehicle or supercar or whatever in real life with 10 different colours in its gearbox. I appreciate the situation is different in non-Technic parts, but people may have a similar sentiment.

And thank you @TomKazutara for repeatedly speaking out for us the tiny minority. (And yes my house is bland and I have a boring life, thank you.)

Lore IIIa: The Revenge
The origins of lighthouses were decidedly unglamorous. Open fires were lit on hillsides to help local mariners find the harbor entrance, and those fires were eventually put on stilted platforms to increase the distance at which they could be seen. Still, fires had to be rather large or they would be too dim to identify from a distance. Operating a lighthouse was, therefore, a very expensive endeavor, and most were located at ports where money to fund them could be raised by taxing trade that made use of the port. The earliest known ruins that may have served as a very basic lighthouse of this type date back four millennia. The Greeks took credit for inventing the lighthouse some 17 centuries later, but even they couldn’t agree on which one was first. At this point, lighthouses were still just open fires on platforms, but now they were located atop stone towers. The oldest surviving lighthouse is the Tower of Hercules in Spain. Built by the Romans nearly two millennia ago, it was last renovated before the era of the modern lighthouse even began. Originally built from the design used for the famed Pharos of Alexandria, it now looks a bit different, as the remaining original structure is encased in one that’s slightly younger than the United States. This was a lighthouse that was not based in a port, but was intended to warn mariners away from a treacherous coast.

While lighthouses are common knowledge, another solution was the use of a lightship. This is a seafaring vessel that has been equipped with a lantern room so a beacon light can be present somewhere that a lighthouse can’t easily be built. Life aboard one of these must have been unusual, as the ship’s crew only had to keep it afloat and stationary, in addition to operating the lantern room. Most lightships were replaced with LANBYs or regular lighthouses as technology improved.

The modern era of lighthouses began about three centuries ago. With improved architecture and concrete that will cure underwater, lighthouses could be built in places where it had previously been impossible. Where the earliest forms were basically just large fires on hills, now they could build them on submerged rocks that were previously navigation hazards. Screw piles allowed them to be built on sandy sea floors. Texas Towers, built on platforms like offshore oil drilling operations, allowed for permanent placement in deep water. Paired range lights allowed the lighthouse to direct ships to a specific point for entry into harbors or channels. Rotating lights allowed them to “encode” the beacon so a skilled navigator could determine what lighthouse they were approaching. Several advancements in lamp design allowed increasingly more powerful and reliable light sources. And the Frensel lens allowed a small lamp to project a beam of light many miles offshore. These days, Frensel lenses are often associated with stage lighting, and picket-friendly reading aids for the elderly, but their origin was for use in lighthouses, though the inventor passed away before his brother was able to put the first one into service.

Lore IIIb: The Revenge
The Frensel lens was based on the fact that magnifying glasses work because the different angles of the opposing surfaces of glass cause refraction, not because of how thick they are. Fresnel figured out that you could collapse the center of the magnifying lens like a drinking cup used for camping, and you’d get roughly the same result. A further refinement to the design was made when it was realized that optical clarity wasn’t necessary, as long as the lens could throw a lot of light into a small area far away. A lighthouse lens was built like half a magnifying glass that had been collapsed. One side was completely flat, and the other was formed of rings that had a triangular cross section. Originally, the long side of these triangles retained the curve derived from the original lens it was intended to emulate. Newer lenses flattened those curves, so they were really more like prisms that had rolled into rings. This development made them much cheaper to produce. Early Fresnel lenses were cobbled together by mounting bits of prism in a metal frame. Modern uses can be cast as one piece of glass like in stage lights, or molded in a single piece of plastic like a flat and flexible magnifying glass for reading.

For about the last century of regular use, electrification of the lantern rooms became increasingly common. No longer did a crew need to haul flammable material up a tower to burn in the lantern room. This also allowed another significant advantage that is often forgotten these days. In thick fog, visibility of the light itself can be reduced or even eliminated, necessitating another means of being able to signal nearby ships. Early forms included manually striking bells or gongs, firing cannons, or using steam-powered whistles. Early advancements for bells included clockwork systems that would automate the process of striking the bell, or suspending them underwater so the bell tone would carry over longer distances and resonate in the ship’s hull. With electricity, a sound system could be installed instead. Using a combination of a high and low tone, these could be encoded like the blink of the main light. Lasers beamed out over the water could be used to automate the fog horn when the light is reflected back by fog.

Combined with visual cues, navigators now had three ways to identify the exact lighthouse they were approaching. This knowledge, combined with general compass heading, and the direction of the lighthouse from the ship, enabled them to place their location on a navigation chart. Hazards could be avoided, harbors could be approached and entered, and progress along the coast could be tracked and verified.

And then…it was all over. Automated systems that required minimal maintenance, and GPS to an even greater extent, have taken over the role of lighthouses in much of the world. Cost to operate and maintain these iconic structures has led to many being dismantled, while only a tiny fraction remain in service for select high-traffic areas. Most of the rest have had ownership transferred to local non-profit groups or private hands. My hometown’s lighthouse was declared “surplus” by the US Coast Guard in 2010, and while I remember hearing the fog horn often as a young kid, I don’t remember ever seeing the lantern room in operation. The shoreward side is blacked out, so the beacon light is only visible from the lake. The only time I may have seen it was as a really young child when my family was invited to watch July 4th fireworks from another family’s pontoon boat.

@spyfung said:
" @ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"Open question: why is there always a complaint about bright colors hidden on the inside of a set that, once completed, will be completely hidden?

But the bottom line is: if you can't see it when it's finished, why worry?"

For realism: I don't know about lighthouses but for my subject area (Technic), as far as I'm concerned, all internal mechanisms ought to be seen, and I have never seen a construction vehicle or supercar or whatever in real life with 10 different colours in its gearbox. I appreciate the situation is different in non-Technic parts, but people may have a similar sentiment.

And thank you @TomKazutara for repeatedly speaking out for us the tiny minority. (And yes my house is bland and I have a boring life, thank you.)"

As you basically already stated ("I appreciate the situation is different in non-Technic parts"), the comparison is apples to oranges. The gear boxes, engines, etc. in many technic sets are literally selling points and meant to be seen, especially the large supercar "series" (such as the Bugatti, Lamborghini and Ferrari), so having a bunch of different colors would not make sense. Other sets however, such as this lighthouse, that have different color pieces you will never see until you disassemble the set, should not be so controversial.

That's like me b*tching about a builder using lime green wood supports in the walls of my house when it should be a normal pine wood color, even though I will never see them when the sheetrock is up and the house is completed.

The way you use "realsim" is relative anyway. Yes, it's not common to see a bright pink support beam in real a building, but it has been done before. Same with pretty much anything on the planet. You'd be surprised at all the different colors of random car parts you can find; IE, google "purple headers".

I don't understand the hate here when one dislikes the bright colours inside a build.
I completely agree with the fact that it is plain ugly and serves no purpose whatsoever.
And the fact that they will be hidden in the end doesn't make for a single valid point as to the usefullness of this building technique.

All the arguments given here are afterwards justifications, not proper reasons.
'It makes for a varied build' or 'It helps searching for the pieces' should go with a 4+ build and not an Icons/Ideas set.

'What are you complaining about, they will be hidden in the end'. By that logic, they can design every hidden part of a set with 1x1 plates or bricks, jack up the part count and price accordingly.

The use of highly contrasting colours in a set like this is simply pointless and I never understood it myself. I dislike it when I come across it but that's it; but the sheer disdain for people openly sharing their opinion about this is simply mind-boggling.

I more and more begin to wonder if the reveration of Saint Lego shouldn't be put on the official holiday calendar from 2023 on.

@Vindic8ed said:
" @spyfung said:
" @ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"Open question: why is there always a complaint about bright colors hidden on the inside of a set that, once completed, will be completely hidden?

But the bottom line is: if you can't see it when it's finished, why worry?"

For realism: I don't know about lighthouses but for my subject area (Technic), as far as I'm concerned, all internal mechanisms ought to be seen, and I have never seen a construction vehicle or supercar or whatever in real life with 10 different colours in its gearbox. I appreciate the situation is different in non-Technic parts, but people may have a similar sentiment.

And thank you @TomKazutara for repeatedly speaking out for us the tiny minority. (And yes my house is bland and I have a boring life, thank you.)"

As you basically already stated ("I appreciate the situation is different in non-Technic parts"), the comparison is apples to oranges. The gear boxes, engines, etc. in many technic sets are literally selling points and meant to be seen, especially the large supercar "series" (such as the Bugatti, Lamborghini and Ferrari), so having a bunch of different colors would not make sense. Other sets however, such as this lighthouse, that have different color pieces you will never see until you disassemble the set, should not be so controversial.

That's like me b*tching about a builder using lime green wood supports in the walls of my house when it should be a normal pine wood color, even though I will never see them when the sheetrock is up and the house is completed.

The way you use "realsim" is relative anyway. Yes, it's not common to see a bright pink support beam in real a building, but it has been done before. Same with pretty much anything on the planet. You'd be surprised at all the different colors of random car parts you can find; IE, google "purple headers"."

The green beams/supports are green because they are impregnated.

@Huw - great review, informative as ever! Thank you…

Are seagulls the new goats?! Will they now begin to appear in other reviews?!

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"But the bottom line is: if you can't see it when it's finished, why worry?"

Because of the tolerance on the bricks, most times you do see the interior shining through...

@dingbat591 said:
"Marvellous review, as always, Huw. Thank you, pictures included!

Getting back to the light issue, after seeing it in action (thanks for the link!) I think it sheds a discreet beam, provided the room/diorama is in total darkness as it happens in real life with lighthouses: they give their best and are most useful when it's pitch dark at sea.

Again, the price is a couple of notches up there, but the set is really worth an effort. Improvements have indeed been made over the initial submission, which was already very well designed. Moving it to minifig scale makes the set even more enticing. Experience tells me it won't be easy to see this kind of set at a discount over time. Apocalypseburg and other similar sets have very rarely been marked down, and boy did I wait for a discount on that one (which never came about)."

A few Black Friday weekends ago, I was able to score the Apocalypseburg set at almost $100 off the regular price from LEGO!

Since that battery box is the same dimensions as the Technic Hub, could you swap it in and fit two more LED pairs in the lighting area for the main light to boost the light output?

I think we all understand WHY they do it, but that still doesn't mean we have to like it. I prefer not to have too many weird colors, not at invisible places, and certainly not at spots that do remain somewhat visible. I mean, yesterday I watched Jang's review of the Camaro, can anyone explain why we all should consider it a good thing you can see several tones of blue and red around the wheels? Because I bet we'll gonna have the exact same discussion when that review comes out here.

I'm not completely against some use of this idea, but I do feel they could tone it down quite a bit. You say 12 year old, but don't you mean 6 or 7? As I mentioned before, 10497 uses only a few (classic) colors instead of every color currently in the Lego inventory. I have it here but haven't build it yet, do I have to worry that this is gonna be an extremely complicated and frustrating build? And why haven't I heard all of the color-lovers complain about the severe lack of color here?

@legoDad42 said:
"I do mean 12 year old. I read that in an interview with a Lego designer. They come into the company, and learn how to work their sketch models into a budget, for stability and that every kit can be built by a 12 year old. Meaning even an 14+, and 18+ kit can be built by either a new Lego 12 year old builder (with some help from mom or dad) or a 12 year old that has been building for a couple years."
Well, one thing that has been very clear was that 18+ had absolutely zero to do with difficulty but was 100% marketing. I mean, 42110 was 11+, while 42126 was 18+. I don't think there can be any discussion which of the two was the more advanced set?

And I'm wondering: do you believe the average 12 year old would be capable to build 10497?

"Every kit is a potential first time kit for someone, somewhere."
If that is the case, why don't they just stick with only 4+ sets? To be fair, in some ways that would be an improvement, because no more stickers ;-)

Let me make one thing cleat: I'm not advocating for very difficult and frustrating builds. But I think there very well can be some middle ground there there is some learning curve involved. They could even do that within a set. I mean, even if you start as an absolute beginner on a 4000 piece "entry level" set, by the time you've build half of it you'll be a pretty experienced builder. And while this has been a discussion we've had before here, I have just a very hard time believing that there are that many people around that never in their Life build a Lego set but then suddenly decide to start with a $300+ set.

"Like myself if I don't like some or all of those 'weird' colors as you say, I just swap 'em out.
Swap out the ones that peek through the model if it bothers me."
Oh great: I first have to pay a lot of money for a Lego set (I think we can all agree that Lego is quite expensive, right?), and then have to replace stuff with pieces I already bought or still have to buy?

And like I said, I can get over truly invisible pieces. But for the ones that remain somewhat visible, why can't Lego provide both options? Looking at that Camaro I mentioned earlier, blue and red pieces for those who detest searching for pieces, and black for those who don't like seeing weird colors.

"That's why I got off of other model kits, (having to prime, paint, sand down parts, water slide decals, etc), cause Lego is just so crazy easy to customize."Why not collect pre-assembled models then? I'm still wondering why Lego doesn't offer those. It doesn't get any easier than that.

That said, last week I build my second ever Gunpla. An Entry Grade kit I bought for my nephew, but turned out he had no interest in that whatsoever. Those kits are advertised as 8+: no tools needed, no painting, no stickers/decals (though any of those could obviously improve the end result). But I can honestly say this small and cheap set was infinitely more demanding than any Lego set currently on the market. And to be fair, I built even more complex model kits decades ago when I was a kid. But that's the thing thing with those kits: not only do they require some skill, there's also a learning curve with kits ranging from beginner to (very) advanced. And you just don't start at the very top. I mean, I've seen some awesome Perfect Grade Gunpla kits that cost over €300, but even when those apparently aren't particularly hard to build (hey, even Adam Savage managed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfmD1yYqP6k), I wouldn't even think of buying one right now. All in due time...

@Vindic8ed said:
"And they fail to understand LEGO's mission statement:

"'Inspire and develop the builders of tomorrow' Our ultimate purpose is to inspire and develop children to think creatively, reason systematically and release their potential to shape their own future - experiencing the endless human possibility.""
How can you develop something if there can't be any learning curve involved? Nothing wrong with the mission statement, I just hardly recognize it in their current products. They do all the thinking for you, so you don't have to. And creativity? That's why they got rid of alternate builds on the packaging, B-models for Technic, and when did they last release an Idea Book? I'm still waiting for a message on the box that says warranty is void if you don't follow the instructions...

@legoDad42 said:
"Of course. Lego designers are taught (from what I read) to keep it around that range for new 12 year old builders (with some help from mom or dad) or an experienced 12 year old builder no problem."
Obviously it was a bit of a rhetorical question. It was just that the lack of a gazillion weird colors that by so many seem absolutely necessary should result in making 10497 the most complex build Lego has on offer right now.

"And I've seen that first hand when I had my son in his school's Lego Robotics team. Kids were 11 and 12, and a couple were 13. Only two built Lego before.
New kids were off on some of the placement of bricks but after some help from my son and another kid, the robotics teacher and myself, after just the first initial builds, all the kids got it and didn't need much help afterwards. "Dare I say it's a bit worrying kids of that age still aren't capable of just following extremely simple instructions? That doesn't have much to do with experience but more with being accurate.

"You don't have too. It's up to you what you want to spend to customize or add on or take away. It's all personal preference. Save some money, create a parts collection if you're into the hobby, etc. "But if it's all personal preference, what's wrong with mentioning that preference?

"Because I like construction toys and builds, not already built models. You can understand all these things and preferences people have no?"I can. But I guess many people can't (or don't want to) understand that some people grow tired of just entry level sets.

@WizardOfOss said:
"Dare I say it's a bit worrying kids of that age still aren't capable of just following extremely simple instructions? That doesn't have much to do with experience but more with being accurate."

Putting this out there first: I am not referring to you. With that out of the way, it's a miracle how some people (adults) figure out how to get out of bed in the morning. It's truly astounding how many people fail to follow simple instructions in this day and age, let alone learn a simple common sense lesson (as the saying goes, "common sense isn't very common").

So, if LEGO is teaching this lesson earlier on (following "simple" instructions, as you say) then I see that as a good thing, not as a bad one.

@WizardofOss
"Dare I say it's a bit worrying kids of that age still aren't capable of just following extremely simple instructions? That doesn't have much to do with experience but more with being accurate."

Everyone especially a child has to start somewhere. It wasn't intense instruction to show them and they excelled and in addition learned to program the robots they built and won the Queens NYC competition and got to the Jacob Javits Center for the finals.

So not at all worrying. From novices they excelled.
What's worrying is adults not knowing how Lego works and what it's intended for.

@WizardOfOss:
I don’t know about Technic B-models (these days only Creator 3-in-1 regularly features multiple build options), but alternate builds went away because people expect truth in advertising. If you show something on the box, they feel cheated if it’s not included, or clearly established that it’s sold separately. Even C3N1 now has graphics that make it pretty clear you can’t build all three models at the same time, and they do include instructions for everything you see on the box. As for the learning curve, back in my childhood, the curve started too high for most kids to even get started. How can you be about helping kids learn creativity and critical thinking if you require them to be of college-level intelligence to build a basic entry-level set?

One key thing AFOLs forget in this discussion is that the average set is already more complex. They’re being designed by kids who grew up playing with older sets, and whose MOCs are lightyears beyond the sets they got as kids. They’re bringing all of that accumulated experience into the job, and using tons of complex techniques in sets that really aren’t that big. That’s one of the reasons people have been complaining that sets have been getting smaller over time, because they use ten pieces to make a bit of detail rather than slapping a plain 2x4 on to fill space. No kid from my childhood would have been prepared to build these $800 SW sets, though we would have loved to try. $5 and $10 sets, aside from polybags and CMFs, are a thing of the past. The first step is therefore higher than when we were kids.

@Vindic8ed said:
While I very much agree the instructions in the old days weren't perfect either, how often was there guessing involved? In most cases it was just a matter of paying attention. And think about and understand what you're doing. Why have those become bad things now?

Indeed difficulty nowadays comes mostly from set size and the attention span required. I've noted too with my nephews (7 and 9) that they have no real problem with sets aimed well above their age, as long as they keep focused. But that's usually the problem: after, say, 50 pages of instructions or so, they get distracted easily, start making mistakes or skipping pages entirely. And 50 pages, by today's standards, how much pieces would we be talking about? 200 at most? By then it's time for a much needed break. And that's indeed the sole reason they won't be able to complete big 18+ sets.

And it's not that I'm asking for a complete revolution. But to limit it to the the use of weird colors, that's perfectly fine for a 5+ set but as the target age grows, gradually tone it down. 10497 even perfectly shows that they can! And for one, on an 18+ display set, none of those weird colors should be visible anymore when the build is finished.

And I bet your "simple solution" was meant as absurd as my suggestion to buy pre-assembled sets, right?

@legoDad42 said:
"You didn't understand the mission statement. It's not about developing better building skills with Lego.
It's about inspiring and hoping kids will take from their love and build experiences from Lego kits to mods to customs mocs, to go into fields of architecture, engineering, robotics, the arts, etc.
That's what they mean. Their future as adults."
But do they see that work out? After all, when you go work in those fields, you won't get instructions. You will be required to think out solutions by yourself.

@legoDad42 said:
"Everyone especially a child has to start somewhere. It wasn't intense instruction to show them and they excelled and in addition learned to program the robots they built and won the Queens NYC competition and got to the Jacob Javits Center for the finals.

So not at all worrying. From novices they excelled.
What's worrying is adults not knowing how Lego works and what it's intended for."
That's great and all, but what you're basically saying is that they had to learn something (and managed!), instead of you (or the instructions) just chewing it out to them?

So very much the opposite of how Lego works...

@WizardOfOss said:
"While I very much agree the instructions in the old days weren't perfect either, how often was there guessing involved? In most cases it was just a matter of paying attention. And think about and understand what you're doing. Why have those become bad things now?"

Those aren't bad skills to master, but there are better ways of going about it (and the old instructions, as we've both agreed on, are not the correct way).

An example is how math is being taught in schools. I'll get the same answer as my kids but they are taught a completely different technique than what I learned. The new way is arguably better because it helps them expand their critical thinking more than the previous method. People who have been doing it the "original" way for 40 years will b*itch about how lame it is when in reality, the same skill is still being taught but in a more efficient way.

Your nephews and my kids have the same issues. They can generally build well above their age level, but it is the larger builds where they start to make mistakes simply because of how long they've been working at it. You have to pay just as much attention to the new instructions as you did the old. Although the new ones are easier to follow, if you get complacent, you'll still make mistakes. That same lesson of thinking about what your doing and understanding how it fits together still applies (which many adults still fail to do in their daily lives).

@PurpleDave said:
"I don’t know about Technic B-models (these days only Creator 3-in-1 regularly features multiple build options), but alternate builds went away because people expect truth in advertising. If you show something on the box, they feel cheated if it’s not included, or clearly established that it’s sold separately."Well, everything for those alternate builds was included....except for the creativity and understanding how to build them. Is it false advertising to show you can build something else from it?

"As for the learning curve, back in my childhood, the curve started too high for most kids to even get started. How can you be about helping kids learn creativity and critical thinking if you require them to be of college-level intelligence to build a basic entry-level set?"
I actually see a different problem there: Lego sets have become so much more complicated. In itself that isn't a bad thing, not at all even. But look at the average 5+ set nowadays, those are so far above what a 5 year old would ever come up with themselves. They can build it by following the instructions to the letter, but do they learn from that? And coming for 4+ sets doesn't help either because most of those involve so little actual construction as they are build around big specialized pieces.

Now look back at the 4-wide cars from the old days. Which for most would have been the first step beyond Duplo. All very much variations on the same theme, mostly using very basic parts, but all ever so slightly different. What did kids do? Take that same basic strategy and come up with their own variations. Might not be that advanced, they are building on from what they learned.

"One key thing AFOLs forget in this discussion is that the average set is already more complex. They’re being designed by kids who grew up playing with older sets, and whose MOCs are lightyears beyond the sets they got as kids. They’re bringing all of that accumulated experience into the job, and using tons of complex techniques in sets that really aren’t that big."
I'll be very honest: I think many techniques used nowadays are mind-boggling, things I could never come up with myself. And especially studless Technic sets, where you need to think so many steps ahead (or keep backtracking). I would never come up with those myself, and I do think the set designers truly are geniuses.

But here's the thing: while I very much love all of those techniques, for everything is a time and place. Like I mentioned above, we now go from extremely simplified 4+ sets that hardly use any basic techniques to 5+ sets that while still relatively simple, already use some advanced techniques well beyond most 5 year old kids. Instead of solving that with instructions, it should start with more age-appropriate builds. Builds with a complexity that even without instructions, kids could get it more or less right. Like with those alternate builds back in the day.

For 18+ sets this is obviously a different story, the designers can (and should) go wild. But no matter how complex the technique, reproducing it will always be extremely simple. Because it's all a matter of adding a few pieces at a time and rotate when the instructions tell you to. As long as you turn your brain off and follow the instructions to the letter, can it ever go wrong?

@WizardOfOss said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"I don’t know about Technic B-models (these days only Creator 3-in-1 regularly features multiple build options), but alternate builds went away because people expect truth in advertising. If you show something on the box, they feel cheated if it’s not included, or clearly established that it’s sold separately."Well, everything for those alternate builds was included....except for the creativity and understanding how to build them. Is it false advertising to show you can build something else from it?"

I feel like that's more societies fault than that of LEGO. I may be mistaken, but I believe one point being made with that statement (at the very least it rings true in the US) is that people now-a-days are "sue happy" and will find anyway to complain about a company to make a quick buck, so companies are basically required to dumb things down in this sense.

IE, the need for "don't swallow" on Tide pods labels.

@Vindic8ed said:
"Those aren't bad skills to master, but there are better ways of going about it (and the old instructions, as we've both agreed on, are not the correct way)."
Saying they weren't prefect either is something different than saying not correct ;-)

I honestly think there should be somewhat of a middle ground between the old instructions that sometimes required you think too much, and the current instructions that don't require you to think at all.

"An example is how math is being taught in schools. I'll get the same answer as my kids but they are taught a completely different technique than what I learned. The new way is arguably better because it helps them expand their critical thinking more than the previous method. People who have been doing it the "original" way for 40 years will b*itch about how lame it is when in reality, the same skill is still being taught but in a more efficient way."
That's an interesting one....I can't remember how (and when) I was taught back in the day, but I guess it worked since I've always been quite good at it. And I don't know where my oldest nephew (9) is at now, but I was surprised to learn that they can already use a calculator in class....I hope that's not the "new method" you mentioned?
"You have to pay just as much attention to the new instructions as you did the old. Although the new ones are easier to follow, if you get complacent, you'll still make mistakes. That same lesson of thinking about what your doing and understanding how it fits together still applies (which many adults still fail to do in their daily lives)."
Absolutely. But thing is, with the new instructions, there's just so much of them. Building even a mediocre sized set equals "reading" a pretty thick book.

But indeed, even for adults that is still an issue. If I open any product and I get a 500 page instruction manual, chances are I will never even look at it. Give me a quick install guide, and a PDF that's easy to search for specific things I need to know. And if it doesn't work, blame the product instead of RTFM. Obviously it doesn't really work that way with Lego, but I do think there can be a middle ground between the old 24 steps for a 900+ piece set and the probably over 300 steps that exact same set would have nowadays.

@WizardOfOss said:
"I do think there can be a middle ground between the old 24 steps for a 900+ piece set and the probably over 300 steps that exact same set would have nowadays."

I can agree with the middle ground. And no, it's not the use of a calculator. ;)

@Vindic8ed said:
"I feel like that's more societies fault than that of LEGO. I may be mistaken, but I believe one point being made with that statement (at the very least it rings true in the US) is that people now-a-days are "sue happy" and will find anyway to complain about a company to make a quick buck, so companies are basically required to dumb things down in this sense.

IE, the need for "don't swallow" on Tide pods labels."
If that's the case, they still do a pretty lousy job. I mean, I have the box of 10497 standing right behind me, and nowhere on the box does it say you have put it together yourself. And haven't we all seen people complain on Amazon? "My set arrived broken in hundreds of pieces even when the box looked perfectly fine! What a lousy QA Lego has!"....

And yes, the US indeed has this bizarre sue culture which makes everyone else in the world roll their eyes, but isn't this even well beyond that? I'd say it's similar with food products, where they clearly say what's on the packaging is only a "serving suggestion", no matter how obvious that is. Put a text "Alternate build suggestion" right next to it, problem solved....

And here I am, spamming this thread even when I told myself to stay out of this discussion. Will I ever learn? :-D

@Koend1999 said:
" @laibros said:
"300 euros and still stickers. Like really. I would like see the person who is making decision regarding RRP. "

Stop the constant whining and complaining about stickers. LEGO will never make all prints. Why? Because they have a policy to have a max number of different bricks in production at the same time. Which is completely understandable given the logistical challenges of introducing new pieces. And since every print is technically a new piece, each printed piece carries a significant cost and would lead to removal of another piece. "

Are you the same guy who is defending stickers on the Lego subreddit ? It is kinda boring move on man and try to respect others opinions

What is even the point of Ideas anymore if the finished product deviates that much from the original submission.

Looks very very awesome. I so like this set, but price, even counting an electrical parts is insane.
Medival Blackmith has the same amount of bricks and cost 180 EUR, so 120 for the electric? For 120 you can buy Lego Technic off-road buggy with whole electronic and bricks.

So, I am a little bit dissapointed with latest Lego prices politics.

Best example of colorful insides of a build are found in 3-in-1 sets, 31109 is my favorite as it even matches port/starboard side red/green colors inside the hull, later to be used as red/green decoration for the tavern, and green mainly used as terrain on the skull island.

@WesterBricks said:
"I don't own the Powered Up lights, are they significantly dimmer than the Power Functions ones? Those are blinding."

I got powered up lights for my train. It is pretty bright on max voltage. Maybe this battery block has V limitation?

@bricksintheattic said:
"Does anyone with an understanding of Powered Up know if you can connect an additional set of the lights used? If I could figure out how to route and hide the cables I'd like to illuminate some floors of the lighthouse or maybe have an extra light in the cottage. Thanks."

It will be hard doing only with lego bricks. Lego battery had only two ports. One for motor, other for a pair of lights. You can use technic hub with 4 ports, but honestly, it is better to use a 3rd part ligthtning. Also, usually, for big sets there are available always some sort of lightning kit.

@WizardOfOss said:
" @bananaworld said:
"Great point! At the very least this needs a rechargeable battery. We all walk around all day with rechargeable batteries in our pockets; we're used to the idea of plugging things in to charge them. I'd love to see a dedicated 1x2 brick with a USB-C socket and a cable out the back to plug into a battery box."
On the one hand, I very much agree. Rechargeable batteries would be so much more efficient and convenient. I got my nephews some Light Stax a few years ago, while not perfect that works so well.

However, there is a downside to that: batteries don't last forever. And even if you could replace them, will the same type still be available? Normal batteries: very much yes, those have hardly changed in the last half a century (at least not form factor). But anything slightly special.....that's a different story.

I love that I can still grab my old 80's Lego (or Fischertechnik or some other stuff), put some batteries in it and it still works!

Now this might be less of an issue with Control+ hub, as that is very much a throwaway system that becomes obsolete once app support stops (or your last compatible device dies....probably because of its battery!), but that's no problem with the "dumb" battery box.

Now there might be some middle ground: add a connector to the battery box so you could charge the batteries without taking them out. Though it's easy to spot the major issue here: how to prevent someone from charging non-rechargeable batteries?

The one thing I would love to see change though is that the battery box is priced like the dumb lump of plastic it is, instead of like the most advanced power system on the planet...."

All powered up blocks have inserts with batteries, so, it is possible create a acumulator in size of that insert, so you can chose to use battery or acumulator. More over, there was kickstarter project recently that wanna create thoes rechargable inserts for powered up system. Unfortunately, they failed to collect money.

That would work indeed. And it would be even better if they would design it in a way that it does have charging connector on the outside, which the battery insert obviously wouldn't have/use.

Well, maybe in the next system....

Great set, but the motorization is not really needed for this type of AFOL-centric set and I would have preferred a higher cliff instead. One plus is that it can be readily repurposed into a Pirates set with nothing but extra minifigs.

I like it. 'nuff said. (^_^)

The Lego bubble will soon burst. Too many specialised sets appealing to too many niche markets, all costing too much. When there’s a global recession on the horizon and people are struggling just to meet the cost of living, Lego decides to increase its prices. Great stuff.

As for the set, it’s very whimsy and pretty. But the scale looks all wrong to me. The island isn’t big enough, either in circumference or height, and the lighthouse and cottage dominate it. Part of the base of the lighthouse appears to overhang the edge of the island.

Minifig scale is good, but the island needs to be larger. Otherwise, micro scale seems more appropriate for this footprint.

As for pricing, £265 is ridiculous when you compare pricing on a modular set. This should be £175-£200

@gelkster said:
"Whaddya mean the keeper's wife doesnt stay over- there's only a single bed...what's that got to do with it?"

It means that after years and years, maybe the keeper has found a great way to keep his marriage alive by having his wife over for a quick lunch every once in a while.

I think a spiral staircase could have been done if the lighthouse was built slightly differently, using corner bricks like they have in the house, and doing without the internal cream frame arches and pillars. You have the illusion of one on the ground floor, so it could have been done.

I think this is a set that could have done without the inclusion of the motorised parts. I admit that I do complain about having to buy them for sets that make use of them, but the price would be more reasonable if they weren't included. I really wanted to get this set, but at that price, I'm gonna wait for a discounted one, especially when I paid that and more for the 10273 and I didn't bother with the motorised parts as I made it into a modular instead.

The design is interesting, I would have preferred a spiral staircase for the price to make the build more interesting. The light brick in 31051 works really well, whereas the led train lights have always being too dim even in a dark room. I was hoping that when they changed from the 10 year old power function to powered up they would increase the brightness but seem to have just changed the connector leaving space for the 3rd party sellers.

wow and wow - great model and exorbitant price

Does Lego not see the current market climate or am I missing a trick

This year, even after a trip to Billund, will see me be the least motivated to spend big on any Lego sets

I just feel they are now taking the proverbial with these prices

Another great lego ideas set, but for me it's just too expensive.

300€ for 2k pieces ? and it´s not an license set ? 200€ are hardly to make a buy decision. but 300€ screams no noooo noooo. what are they thinking, if even they do?

@CamberbrickGreen said:
"I wish it had a massive brick sea wave sweeping up the side of it, BOOM!
(There’s no pleasing some AFOLs.)"
Is this what you're looking for?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jjrailton/8162738175/in/dateposted-public/

Would have liked a whole Flock of Seagulls to go with the Aurora theme (I Ran... So Far Away) :)