Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Daedalus304

  • Birthday 03/28/90

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New Mexico


  • Country
  • Special Tags 1

Recent Profile Visitors

504 profile views
  1. Not many other hobbies have people wanting step by step instructions that can easily take 40+ hours on top of the countless hours put into the design and testing, either. Good instructions for excellent models aren't as simple as taking progress pictures and writing up a blog post. Most of the huge and complex models people want instructions for are an enormous investment in time, so it is understandable for the people who spend the time doing so to want some degree of compensation. Also, a lot of that compensation generally goes towards the next project, which is a win-win for everyone!
  2. This sort of motor and switching method is pretty much exactly what I have been thinking I want to do. Getting a huge high torque motor to fight the switch lock never seemed like the right way to me, especially since it leaves a huge ugly box on the inside of the switch turn that is likely to foul up longer coaches. One other really neat thing with this particular motor and switching method - if you are ballasting your track and your baseplates are built up about the height of the MILS standard, you should be able to hide the entire motor underneath the switch itself!!
  3. I think it's a bit more complicated an expectation. Say that LEGO did go and make a new mold of a very faithful, film-accurate storm trooper rifle and put it in a storm trooper battle pack. Then next wave, here's the new battle pack for Battle Droids. If LEGO puts the storm trooper rifles in for the B1s, it would probably be received worse by the hardcore Star Wars fans than if they just had generic rifles. Down that route, LEGO would have to make a new weapon mold for every unique troop type. The costs of the tooling, the logistics involved in making sure all the troops have the "accurate" weapons, all of that becomes expensive and time consuming. Then there's the other thing - yes, hardcore adult Star Wars fans are a lot more likely to be both interested and able to spend a large amount of money buying tens of dozens of battle packs to army build, but at the end of the day those fans are neither the target audience nor the group that overall brings in the most profit for the line. The kids and the general LEGO Star Wars fans vastly outnumber the true hard-core guys, and for them film-accurate weapons for every fig in a battle pack are, well, not really features that add value. The generic guns work for everyone and are easily interchangeable, and beyond that - from what I remember as a kid and from talking to kids who are really into LEGO Star Wars now - the generic guns are just fine, as far as actual play is concerned just having a gun is as much as they need. Having "generic pistol" and "generic rifle" with the option to add technic half-pins to customize things is fine. That equation will probably never change for LEGO. They're very focused on the play experience, and the ability for parts to have a good amount of re-usability. For 99% of their customers, film-accurate Star Wars guns don't enhance the play experience - so I think they've got little incentive to spend such a large amount of money making minifig-scale scale models of Star Wars guns. That's why 3rd party guys like Brickarms are great. They don't have the same target audience as LEGO and they can offer the more niche items that AFOLs want - yes, they're more expensive, but that's the way supply and demand works. This is the sort of thing I've had to come to terms with as a LEGO train builder. LEGO doesn't make train wheels in all the sizes I need, nor the many different track radii. And they probably won't - for the target audience, the 2 wheel sizes and 1 track radius are more than enough. Big Ben Bricks and ME Models solve both of those problems very well. More expensive, yes - but I realize I'm in a niche and I'm okay to pay that difference.
  4. I actually picked this up as my first 9v train set a couple years ago, and I was really impressed by it. The design seems simple, but it's probably the most fun I've had with play features in a LEGO set in a very long time. Cool to see that you're piecing it back together - good luck with the final stretch!
  5. Unfortunately I think it's gotta be a driver issue with the GTX10XX line. I myself built a new computer earlier this year running Win7 on an Intel 6600K and 16 GB Ram, but I got a GTX 750 Ti to tide me over until I can get a 1080 next year (They weren't out yet when I built it). It seems the common denominator on effected machines is the 10XX line... I guess that's something for me to keep in mind next year! Do you have another video card you can swap in and see if that solves the problem? Edit again: Just had a friend with a GTX 1080 try it out, they're running an older Intel CPU. Same problem shows up as soon as they turn on the outlines, but no problem without. Perhaps you could try running without outlines and see if that solves it for you?
  6. I love it! The N1 Starfigher is one of my favorite Star Wars ship designs, and it's unfortunately one that's rather tough to get looking nice and sleek in LEGO. I think you've adapted Psiaki's design well, and my only 'criticism' is one that applies to Psiaki's original as well: the main engine cylinders just feel way too short. If you look at this massive picture here, the main engine cylinder stretches nearly all the way to the front of the nose before the cone comes into play, and the back of the engines nearly reach the front of the cockpit as well. But, again, I really love this rendition of it and would love the LXF... but the dropbox link doesn't seem to be working at the moment. I guess I'll have to practice what the Skywalker boys never seem to have quite gotten down - patience!!
  7. At this point I can't help but think that this is one of the biggest trolling attempts the Train Tech forum has ever seen. I'm not going to repeat the rather on-the-nose criticism already given to the unique solution you've decided to use; and any further pointers on the general shape of the rest of the bodywork I'm not too keen on sharing at the moment. I don't know if this just a massive troll attempt or an incredibly bad mood due to sleep deprivation and tooth work (Which sucks, I know); but please know that this kind of attitude is not going to ingratiate yourself any with the community you're trying so hard to impress. We have no problem with someone preferring their own work, surely nobody would design their own models in a way they feel is inferior to another's. And every now and then, a model does come along that really does absolutely define what can be done with that model in the LEGO medium and nobody takes umbrage with that. The problem you're running into here is surely almost entirely rooted in the fact that the first 3 paragraphs - a good 75% of your post - is not focused so much on the merits of your own model as it is effectively calling the entire rest of the train community unimaginative and lazy. A community that it is fairly obvious you are very new to and don't know well. Even if this whole attitude and reaction is a facade, and 'we all just don't get the subtle irony of the title', I want to ask you in all honesty: What does this gain you? What are you looking to achieve by acting this way?
  8. I am a huge fan of these engines (In fact I have built two!), and it is very interesting to see your rendition of one of them in 6-wide. It is also very interesting to me that you have built the forward engine as the one rigid to the frame; on the real locos the rear engine is rigid and the front has some very clever articulation for a good wide swing. I'm curious to see how well this design tracks, if you ever do build it. Two things I feel I should point out is that your water tanks aren't tall enough (they should be taller than the top of the boiler), and the front pistons should be noticeably larger than the rear set (Which is what sets a mallet apart from a standard articulated loco). Those are somewhat small asides though to the fact that is is a pretty good 6-wide mallet! Are you planning to ever build it?
  9. Unfortunately this is the sort of problem you run into whenever you anchor your scaling directly to minifigs. It is especially bad when trying to build scale cars, as minifigs are incredibly wide for their height. With official LEGO trains, no matter how you base your scaling the gauge is far too wide; but LEGO is unlikely to change it after 50-some years. I don't think that's a problem, really, as it would be a real pain for anyone who has already invested in the hobby. There was enough of an outcry over the switch from 9v to PF, and that kept consistent gauge and turn radii! For me personally, minifig consideration is very near the back of my concerns for scaling. As an 8-wide builder, I find it's easier to generally scale my locomotives to 1/48 and tweak it from there. My 4-8-4 is built to a slightly smaller scale because there are no drivers available that properly represent the behemoth 80 Inch drivers in 1/48. Minifigs fit pretty nicely in 1/48th scaled models without needing to skew any of the portions, even though their sizes aren't exactly proper. None of that helps with the problem that the gauge is too wide, of course. Building 10 wide is closer to correct, but then the driver size problem becomes egregious and Minifigs start seeming even smaller. Are minifigs 6 feet tall and 3 feet wide? Or are they five feet tall and 2.5 feet wide? (Or perhaps if you want to build really big they are only 3 feet tall?) No matter which way you go, though, it is probably easier to choose a more clearly defined scaling method. At the end of the day, there is no really "wrong" option for what scale you choose. 6, 7, and 8 wide are all going to look a little weird with the track gauge and between that and the very limited driver selection there is always going to be some selective skewing required. Then even beyond that you have the 10 wide builders or fellows like Alexander who decide to scale their models as if the standard LEGO train is narrow gauge - building models that are huge but gorgeous.
  10. I'm a bit surprised at the turn of the thread, to be honest. The mod is a well-designed one that definitely keeps things more rigid, but I can't help but feel that the extent of the gap problem has been overblown (Not necessarily by the OP). I had my Slave I sitting on the shelf for over a year, and the gap was pretty small. Even after I did the mod, the gap only closed by maybe a millimeter or two. The mod was very well designed and, at least to me, the connection seemed a perfect fit. I have never seen the gap as bad on mine as others have reported, and even with some gentle tugging I was never able to get the gap even close to as bad as what Anio reported. This mod is great for adding some extra stability if you're the kind who likes to reinforce things, or if for whatever reason your copy of the model seems to be a little "gappier" than proper; but the average gap amount I've seen is not bad enough to say that the set has a 'serious design flaw'. This is probably one of my favorite UCS sets so far, and it's a bit of a shame to see so much consternation over what feels like making a mountain out of a molehill.
  11. Wow, very nice looking locomotive! The shaping on it is especially impressive for being a 6-wide engine containing all the electronics in a 4-wide hood.Great job!
  12. That's a tricky puzzle you have there! Now, I did my best to get it looking as close as I could to what you've got, and I've come up with this: The LDD File is here. Now, it uses a couple of parts that are a little out of the ordinary, two in particular aren't rare perse but they aren't super common. That said, every brick here has been produced. I hope this is what you are looking for! It has been a real blast trying to figure it out!
  13. You could try replacing the traction bands on your train wheels with some o-rings. I don't remember now exactly which size is usually used, but I have replaced the O-rings on one or two particularly tractionless locos and that was all I needed to do. It's certainly easier than redesigning the entire thing! As for Codefox's receiver, you can find that right here. In a bit of coincident timing, I actually just got one installed into one my current, nearly finished locos. It is actually closer to 4x4 bricks, not counting the extra space needed for the wires, but it is only about two plates tall and is very easy to work around. I haven't put it through any serious paces yet, but it seems to be handling 2 L-motors just fine so far.
  14. Well, it looks like you found mine already! I'm glad you liked the truck design, and I really like your changes to it! Making me take a second look at the ones I've got.
  15. Looks good! It's interesting to me to see the differences between this CN unit prototype and the BNSF one I've been modelling. I too suggest using L-drivers for the fans up top. It must be SD40-2 season, because I am just finishing one up as well and have only stickers left to go! It would be neat, though geographically challenging, to get them all together and see the different styles side by side.