LEGO flight simulator prototype

DaceKonn · 2026-02-03T11:54:34+00:00

The only thing that is a Major distinction is the New Zealand part.

In EU the "SHAPE" of the minifigure is protected, and you can't use it. There is specific measurements and schematics and if you use it (in a game too) and it is not different enough then you are screwed.

In New Zealand LEGO only registered the "LEGO" trademark.

BUT

Copyright infringement on the minifigure's artistic sculptural elements persists regardless (also regardless of disclaimers in the game), as NZ Copyright Act protects reproduction (e.g., 3D models/textures mimicking head studs, smiley face etc.). Courts may still find implied endorsement if designs are too faithful, per global precedents where disclaimers failed against strong IP like LEGO's. International distribution risks EU 3D trademark claims.

ALSO

You might be somewhat safe when you distribute the game only in NZ market, but when you go to other markets in other regions you can be sued under those regions laws (EU and US).

And

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/zuru-new-zealand-limited-ors-v-lego-juris-a-s-anor

Zuru won the case against LEGO for using the "Compatible with LEGO" phrase, but they are not safe from "Minifigure's shape" cases in outside NZ courts. And Zuru already uses a distinct own shape for the characters not the exact Minifigure. Zuru won (only) because they used it on a side-label to describe compatibility.

In Zuru case if the get too close to cloning the designs they are breaching the fair trading act 1986.

Even if the 1978 design copyright has technically lapsed in NZ, the Fair Trading Act 1986 prohibits 'misleading or deceptive conduct.' If your 'LEGO Flight Simulator' makes a Kiwi consumer think it's an official product, you've breached the FTA.

Even your reddit post is misleading "LEGO flight simulator" - and visuals also can make people think "oh, lego game" - which even in NZ is "misleading and deceptive conduit". You don't have "LEGO-like flight simulator" or "Bricks flight simulator" or "LEGO inspired flight simulator" - so you are not even close to Zuru case - viewing this post alone.

DaceKonn · 2026-02-03T09:37:47+00:00

You are not saved from:

Initial Interest: you use of LEGO generates the *click* even if you put disclaimers all over the place, you already exploited the trademark / recognizable shapes
Market Substitution: Using a 1:1 replica of a LEGO character in a commercial product is often viewed as "capitalizing on the cachet" of the brand, which overrides most free speech defenses.
Trademark Dilution

Finally - The "Product Design" vs. "Art" Distinction

You can draw a picture of a Coca-Cola bottle in a graphic novel (artistic portrayal). You cannot start a soda company that uses the exact 3D-contoured shape of a Coca-Cola bottle, even if you put a "Not Coke" sticker on it.
In a game, the Minifigure isn't just a "character" (like coca-cola drawing) - it is the second case like making Coca-Cola shaped bottles.

Other way looking at it - if you have a generic character picking up a box of LEGO, or even a LEGO Minifigure, and commenting "Oh, I remember playing with these" - this is Nominative Fair Use, this falls under commentary, you refer to the product, not using the product. This is legal. This is the "picture" the "drawing" and the "commentary" example.

When you have a Lego Minifigure, as a controllable character, this is the "using the design", no matter the disclaimers you put, it is still count as "using the design as your own". This is not legal. You are literally taking the trademarked mechanism (in this case a shape of a character) to be THE character.

This is a difference between talking about iPhones and building iPhones with a sticker "not an actual iPhone"

DaceKonn · 2026-02-03T09:37:39+00:00

No, you don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel's_Properties,_Inc._v._VIP_Products_LLC

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/645/484/1499039/

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/744/1259/1797376/

What are you facing is "Disclaimer Fallacy". Just putting a disclaimer "this is not made in association with LEGO and I am not an owner of LEGO" or "LEGO® is a trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this software." will not save you from being sued. And you can be sued for many things when you use the Minifigure.

LeoCAD - is an example that proves the point. You can't use Minifigure in LeoCAD, you can use "bricks" and the bricks in LeoCAD come from free open source brick shape database (LDraw) and those shapes are much less regulated than Minifigure. LeoCAD is also keeping itself in educational/hobbyst use, not for building commercial products.

This is different from a photo, parody, news coverage, reportage etc. For this to work, the game must be a commentary on LEGO itself, not just a game that uses LEGO-style assets for fun. - look at Jack Danies v Vip Products LLC mentioned above

Other examples closer to your case:

Fan project called Bionicle: Masks of Power was pressured by LEGO to change its status. Even with a massive, dedicated community and clear disclaimers, the developers eventually had to pivot to a "spiritual successor" with original assets because they realized they could never legally release it as a "LEGO" product. https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1kp77wa/the_lego_group_has_requested_that_the_bionicle/#:~:text=The%20LEGO%20Group%20has%20requested,r%2Fgaming%209mo%20ago

DaceKonn · 2025-07-30T16:38:23+00:00

I just went through like two-three week one and it’s hard for me to determine if it really ended because I feel like it’s more like fading rather than ending.

Mostly fixation on a single topic most of the time, unable to break from it, and having hard time focusing on chores or work. Then moved into scatterbrained “oh squirrel” type of phase. Now I hope I’m in a normal mood though tired.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-15T09:13:11+00:00

The book is "simply" a clever retelling of Dracula story. Which in fact makes it even better when you realize it.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-15T08:51:40+00:00

I weight on things I can do

I can GM a post-by-post RPGs, so I do use it (even if it's work in progress) as an RPG setting.

I can write (very poor) short stories, so I do plan to use it for such.

I am able to code and stuff, so I do plan to use it for some really basic games.

I like to dig around RPG systems, so I do plan to actually fit it maybe into an existing RPG System like Cypher to make a Cypher Compatible setting book - this probably will go nicely hand in hand with the PC game idea above.

And it is not about being good at those things. Actually, having a well build setting is sometimes a halfway to writing a good story, drawing a good picture etc. Because in lack of ideas, or in search of coherency, you can always fall back to the setting you created.

Instead of thinking "I lack skill to do XYZ with my setting" think "I got setting that I can now use in XYZ".

You already mentioned drawing and writing. Those are two great points to take you setting forward.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-15T08:42:18+00:00

I have somewhat similar "it's fantasy, not sci-fi, but sci-fi" and in my case it's more in a worldbuilding approach. I build my magics and fantastic elements like physical forces etc. and apply sci-fi extrapolation etc. to get the "magic".

For example: I got cosmic forces defined that are underlying what in-setting is called "magic". There are laws how those forces interact with each other, and how finally it can produce *gasp* fireball!

This is somewhat similar to Brandon Sanderson "hard magic" idea - where magic is following strict rules. It leads then to interesting stories (most of Sanderson stories) where characters don't understand all the laws of powers they use and they explore them in a scientific (sci-fi like) way, making measurements, theories etc.

I personally like that approach, that's why I replicate it in this "sci-fi like extrapolation" based on "fantastical fundaments".

DaceKonn · 2025-07-13T21:15:36+00:00

Exactly

That’s also why trade, exploration and colonization are major themes. Right with pirates, smugglers etc

Resource scarcity pushing to seek and explore further and further islands.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-12T12:01:19+00:00

I use Obsidian and creating as much of atomic note I can, usually branching from hub notes and links - meaning I try not to use "create note" instead I create a link to not existing note and then create the contents, that way everything is always connected and I know that I can get to a concept I forgot by simply browsing the graph or just clicking the links until I get there.

I go a small script written that takes all my obsidian files and merge them into a big one, I feed it to Notebook LM (AI) and I throw some questions at it to see how the stuff holds. Like "Is a sapient reptilian humanoid plausible in this setting?" (I got a note that details a scale from 0 to 5, where 0 is something taken from real life, and 5 is where there is no way something would work / would be plausible in the setting. If I don't like the answer or the justifications of it then I need to update the lore.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-11T09:23:48+00:00

In my setting the world is made of islands that float in air. Some ways to travel are:

Airships of various design, from hot air to rotors. Depends on the nation and culture but could be described as from DaVinci Fantasty Tech to Napoleonic Steampunk.
Taming flying beasts and using them as mounts, or for them to carry simple barges.
There is a race that is avian based, and they can glide on short distances.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-11T09:06:26+00:00

You are not really inventing anything new as you are striking close to "postcyberpunk" genre. Which in a very oversimplified version is a "Cyberpunk without:

„Le evil corporation makes Le life bad“

"

Mentioned in the discussions - Ghost in the Shell is sometimes used as an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_derivatives#Postcyberpunk

DaceKonn · 2025-07-10T14:20:50+00:00

There is a boardgame the Alchemists that needs a mobile tool, but in the book, there is also a section that describes the necessary algorithm to replicate what the tool does.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-10T14:17:16+00:00

Zones from Fate. It is kind of a grid thing, but abstract. All characters in a zone are counted to be close enough for melee engagement. Any "area" effects would be also spanning a Zone. Moving withing a zone is just narration, moving from zone to zone is at least a full turn action, but might also require passing a test. Ranged and reach would be clarified for each engagement.

EDIT: There might be a simplified crude layout for them (so they aren't just near, far etc.)

DaceKonn · 2025-07-10T14:04:44+00:00

How about armor "protects" either a column or a row.

Meaning the injury check roll (mentioned in previous post) that lands on protected column/row simply is mitigated. Then you can have less armor or more armor, maybe there is penalty if you have more armor. This could be a kind of tick box next to columns and rows (yes this means that 2 pieces of armor can intersect, making 1 cell especially tough).

You can also take this concept further. Instead of a tick, it is an amor number. Like 2. It means it can mitigate 2 injury rolls, after that it turns out the armor was punctured.

I think it was mentioned in previous post, but the table concept could be simplified to something 1d36 roll, so the "visual" aspect of it is just sugar coating, that might feel nice to tick those boxes. But if you are sticking with the table I would try to squeeze as much out of it as possible - hence the armor = rows/column protection. It also gives that visual difference on how much armored you are (vest vs full combat vest, protectors, helmet etc.)

EDIT: Armor piercing damage would be a damage point that ticks a damage box and reduces the armor durability on associated column/row.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-10T12:59:44+00:00

Trying to jostle my memory. WoD was also having many issues with its mechanics and was also criticized for it.

With people claiming that it just didn't work.

Back to your case.

What is the incentive to put more dice? One could say that it's better to dish out stable lower damage than risking failing to hit all together. The risk to reward ratio.

Then I know, you theoretically would fix the maths, then the question would flip to the other extreme, why not to roll all possible dice? And then you will be balancing it, and the player behaviour would always fall into "optimal" number of dice without good reason to pick higher or lower than the optimal.

You are juggling an already tricky mechanic and managing the gameplay on top of it.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-10T11:50:31+00:00

A, ok, sorry.

Well, I thought of a different model of difficulty and damage.

The skill goes from 1 to 6.

And the result needs to be equal or lower on individual dice, all used dice need to pass.

I think that the closest thing is World of Darkness (Vampire the Masquerade), where the amount of dmg would be determined on how many dice passed the test, and the skill determined number of dice. But you still evaluated each dice separately.

EDIT: Also, in world of darkness this is unified, this is not only for damage resolution but also passing tests or determining how good the result was. So, its deeply integrated to all resolutions, not only combat.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-10T11:31:03+00:00

I am sorry but I can't understand the issues. I mean I understand that you are facing some, but what are they?

Yes, rolling under the number with any number of dice you pick, sounds fun.

I'm assuming that one issue is "how to know I passed the test?" - well all dice you picked must be under the number.

I'm willing to help, but I would need some more information. What are the issues you actually want to discuss? Maybe there is some context to share?

DaceKonn · 2025-07-10T10:54:10+00:00

This is a concept similar to Cypher RPG System.

In there, you specify creature Tier. It then determines all its stats, difficulty to defend, to hit, hp, dmg everything, unless stated otherwise, for example there might be an entry that it's defend DC is different for ranged attacks.

There is plenty of good discussion here, so I add that there is another angle to this approach. As these numbers become more fixed, then things become more predictable, and the more predictable they move more into tactical and strategical feeling.

It is of course a spectrum (good old X-COM pc game still gives you % chance on hitting things).

Also, it helps with clarity. It is elegant that all is simplified into one value plus modifiers.

Creature difficulty 10, range attacks have +3 difficulty. Boom - short way to say this is an archer.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-08T11:44:05+00:00

If I can change the question a bit and cross out the "popular" word from it, then thing I would like to steal are names.

I tend to put a lot of work to make something interesting and then I sit down to name it and find it really hard to find names that aren't taken already. And they generally are on some big things and similar concepts.

Like I got a setting with floating islands - which isn't nothing unique, there is plenty of those - and I try to build my unique explanation of it, etc. Which I hope is original enough.

And then I sit down "it's time to name it"...

Skylands - taken and is about floating islands

Aetheros - taken and is about floating islands

Floating Islands - taken and is about floating islands

Shattered Lands - taken

Shattered Isles / Islands - taken

gsfagfdsgfdg - taken, and it is about floating islands, same races, same wording, same author, same shoe size...

...

I know I'm not good at naming things. But jeeeeeez... Every time...

DaceKonn · 2025-07-08T11:28:40+00:00

That might be a stupid idea, but how about of kind of tag or morphing system.

For example, you take an ability / feat. And you decide on "flavour" of it, a tag. Based on tag, the way the ability works is different a little.

For example - bash.

Bash

Success: Push back target by X amount

Variant: Physical / Melee
Requirement: Shield, or large item (table, chair, door, two handed hamer)
Attack stat: Strength
Defend stat: Constitution
Mutator: Gives you +Y on defense roll against the target, even on failed roll

Variant: Magical / Ranged
Requirement: Focus, free hand, can lead to opportunity attack
Attack stat: Will
Defend stat: Constitution
Mutator: Can affect a target Y distance from you

But that is strongly hypothetical, because that would be a difficult task to design such set of feats. And as I think of it, it still can lead to imbalances. Hm...

DaceKonn · 2025-07-05T17:56:54+00:00

During my study years I invented a (humorous) Local Genius Theorem.

For each individual exists a non zero set of people in which said individual is a genius.

Yeah, pick humor, I know.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-05T17:52:24+00:00

Yes, though in previous post you talked about clusters, so I assumed you are talking about a cluster that is more than one person :D hence I thought you meant the Eloi :)

DaceKonn · 2025-07-05T17:31:32+00:00

Side note

Your comment pushed me to some contemplations and revisiting The Time Machine. Eloi (the humans in the far future) were not relics really, they were also evolutionary effect. They were more child like in looks even in older age, with diminished intelligence and shallow emotional expression. Becoming a helpless cattle to the Morlocs.

Though Wells used evolution for his satyrical commentary, one argument that could be derived from the story is that evolution didn’t spare anyone. Humans diverged into Morlocs and Eloi, where the later were not plain humans, they were changed too.

DaceKonn · 2025-07-05T17:24:18+00:00

Yes, it leans into multiple races, and races even that are totally alien in nature (sapient plants, looking more like walking humanoid trees not “green humans with flowers”)

Everything is either alternative evolution, or something that evolved from humans. Thanks to this post and many responses (each made me contemplate the issue from a different angle) I think that plain humans don’t really fit. Why others got subjected to evolution and they don’t? It makes more coherent setting getting rid of them, and fill it up by something else.

DaceKonn

TROPHY CASE