Jon61

Having used MLCad without problems for a few years (though fairly infrequently, so there's lots about it I don't know) I've recently been having some issues bringing in some unofficial parts (the first time I've tried to do this). I've struggled with this for some hours, and then tried to find if the issue had already been covered online, but I can't find anything that helps, including looking in the Section Index of this forum and attemtpting to search for related threads - apologies if I've missed it (or if I've done something silly in getting to where I am). Sorry also for the lengthly description below! The short version is that I believe I have managed to add some 'unofficial' parts in my MLCad library - they are showing up in the Parts Tree, and can be built into a model without 'Unknown Part' errors - but the 3-D representation of those parts does not appear on screen, either in the Parts Preview window, or in the rendering of the model within MLCad. The parts do however appear when the model is subsequently viewd using LDView. The problem only happens when using MLCad without Administartor privileges though. The detail: As I'm using a different PC to the one I last used MLCad on, I have recently done a new installation to a Windows 10 PC, using the All-in-one-installer, so it should be a standard installation, in the folder C:\Users\Public\Documents\LDraw. I normally use a non-administrator account, and MLCad 3.51 (and LDView 4.3) seemed to work fine on this installation when I was just using the standard library, but I wanted to use some of the new-ish parts included in the 42099 inventory, and this is where I had problems. I used the LDraw2001.exe file to bring my standard library as far up-to-date as possible (I think). After this update, for example, I have access to the 3x3 connector 39793 - it shows up in both the Parts Tree and Parts Preview windows, and I can use it in models. But that still left me without the new CV Joint parts and the planetary hubs, so I went looking online for unofficial parts for these items. I found various articles online about using unofficial parts, but I wasn't entirely clear after reading them exactly what needed to be done. In particular, I was left somewhat unclear for example about: - the particular purposes of the separate 'Parts' and 'P' folders; - why you would want to SHOW some but HIDE others in the MLCAD.ini file; - what exactly the 'Scan Parts' instruction does, and when you need to use it; - what program(s) use the Part.lst file (or the Parts.xml file) as opposed to simply looking for .dat files in the relevant folders. Following Holly-Wood's instructions (http://www.holly-wood.it/mlcad/unofficial1-en.html) as best I could, I found the parts for the new CV joints (52730 & 52731) and the planetary hubs (46490) in the LDraw.org parts tracker, downloaded them (including required sub-parts) and put them in the <LDRAWDIR> Parts and Parts\s folders as appropriate. I have amended the MLCad.ini file following his example, un-commenting the lines referring to SHOW <LDRAWDIR>Unofficial\Helper and SHOW <LDRAWDIR>Unofficial\Custom (although I don't understand the significance of this, as the new parts aren't in these particular folders?). But starting MLCad (using my normal non-adminstrator account) after these changes did not appear to bring in the unofficial parts I'd added. I tried "Scan Parts" which did report new parts and offered to write a new Parts.lst file, which I accepted, but this did not seem to make any difference (from the timestamp, I don't believe that the Parts.lst file was actually being updated). By trial and error, I discovered that if I ran MLCAD instead as an administrator, the new parts I'd added did appear in the Parts Tree and the Parts Preview, and I could use them as normal in my model. That wasn't enough however for them to subsequently appear in MLCad when run later without administrator rights however. But if ran "Scan Parts" while using MLCad as an administrator, I was able to update the Parts.lst file. And subsequently, running MLCad without administrator rights then did have the new parts shown in the Parts Tree. But even though I could use them in a model (without 'Unknown Part' errors), they appeared only as a blank space in the Parts Preview window, and they did not show up in the actual model windows - which mean that they are practically unusable within MLCad as you can't see where you are placing them (other than by the coordinates in the parts list). See screenshots below for examples. They are definitely included in the library and in the model though, as a model built using them will display the added parts correctly using LDView. Also, MLCad shows the correct information in the status line when the cursor hovers over the blank space in the Parts Preview window. MLCad run with Administrator rights - the planetary hub and the CV parts show up in the Parts Tree, the Parts Preview window and in the model: The same model loaded into MLCad without Administrator rights - the new parts show up in the Parts Tree window, but only appear as blank spaces in the Parts Preview WIndow and in the model. Note that the cursor was hovering over the 'Technic Steering Constant Velocity 8mm Joint Female' part in the Parts Preview window when the screenshot below was taken, and the corresponding details appear in the status line, so the parts are present in the library The model viewed in LDView: So it would appear that something I've done (or not done) has messed up the rendering of the 3-D model of the added parts within MLCad - but only if run without administrator rights. Can anyone shed light on what I need to do to correct this? I am particularly puzzled by this behaviour, as I thought that regardless of whether MLCad was run as an administrator or not, it was still using the same installation of the program, the same MLCad.ini file etc in the <LDRAWDIR> folder, and so I don't understand how the part 3-D model can show up in one place and not the other. I can just about understand how MLCad can apparently be unable to update Parts.lst unless it has administrator rights, as that involves writing to a file. But surely, once the parts are in the library, displaying a 3-D represntation of a part from the library should only involve reading from a file(s), so why does administrator rights make this difference? Having said that, there are clearly other things going on with the setup of MLCad that I don't understand, as when I run it with adminstrator rights, I don't see the changes I made to the 'Settings/Parts Tree/Tree Configuration' that I made as an ordinary user. So that part of the setup must be stored somewhere separately for my 'administrator' user to my ordinary user, although as far as I can only see, they're both using the same 'C:\Users\Public\Documents\LDraw' folder? Any help would be gratefully received, including pointers to where I might find the answer elsewhere if necessary. PS I understand that could carry on using MLCad with administrator privileges to avoid this issue, but I would rather not do that if possible. And I am in awe of the capabilities of MLCad and the other LDraw programs, so am very grateful to the folks that enable them to be provided free for the community. Setup: Windows 10 MLCad 3.51 Environment variable <LDRAWDIR> is set up and points to C:\Users\Public\Documents\LDraw The Scan_Order section of the MLCad.ini file reads as follows: [SCAN_ORDER] 1 = SHOW <LDRAWDIR>Parts 2 = HIDE <LDRAWDIR>P 3 = SHOW <LDRAWDIR>Unofficial\Parts 4 = HIDE <LDRAWDIR>Unofficial\P 5 = SHOW <LDRAWDIR>Unofficial\Helper 6 = SHOW <LDRAWDIR>Unofficial\Custom

Thanks for that @astyanax, I was going to do the comparison at some point but you've save me the trouble! As I thought, there really aren't that many panels left over from the original 42056 set, showing what a good match @JamesJT's model is for the official set and how cleverly he's used them. I'm surprised that this MOC hasn't got more attention on the forum than it seems to have, from the number of comments. I'm really looking forward to building it - my 42056 currently looks as if it's in a wrecker's yard as I've started pulling it to bits in readiness

Yes, I think it must be a UAC issue of some kind, but I don't really know where to start to resolve it. I'm not exaclty an expert on UAC, but it does seem to work OK for everything else, and I've used non-administrator accounts since UAC was introduced several Windows versions ago. I did run the MLCad installer with admin rights (probably from a non-admin user by selecting "Run as Administrator", rather than directly from the Administrator account), and it doesn't seem to cause any issues with the official parts libraries. I suspect it is probably, as Roland mentioned above, that there is a glitch in the handling of the unofficial parts in MLCad that wasn't written in a way 100% compatible with UAC. But it's not an issue for me any more anyway - a) because I've found my 'fudge' way of fixing it by putting the parts into the official library folders, but more importantly, b) because I'm now a complete convert to LDCad

This is amazing! You've done an incredible job to capture the shape of a particularly 'curvy' car with Technic pieces - I'd say you've done a better job of the Miura's shape than Lego did with the GT3RS. I particularly like the way you've done the front wings, which I wouldn't have thought could be done that well with Technic panels. And to have managed to include the doors (with the distinctive B-pillars), clamshells, a boot, gearbox and engine, and even pop-up headlights - and to have been able to do that using just the parts in the A model is a fantastic achievement! You've managed to close in the bodywork so well that I honestly think someone looking at them side-by-side might think that Lego's version was the B model And you had just the right amount of orange and black pieces to match the real thing's styling - I'm curious to compare the parts list to see what would be left over, as it's hard to believe it could be that good a match, and in the same scale as 42056. The only utterly trivial things I can find to say against it is that shouldn't it only have one door mirror, on just the driver's side? (Not that I'm fortunate enough to be an expert on Miuras.) And I think on the real thing, the front clamshell doesn't hit the ground when you open it (I winced at that point in the video ) But of course those are just said in jest and not intended as a criticism. I normally prefer just to take inspiration from other people's MOCs and work out how to do something similar, but I think I might have to buy the building instructions for this.

Thanks @roland, that's very helpful. And it explains why everything worked properly once I put the parts into my "official" folders. I'm still really puzzled by the administrator/non-administrator differences (in MLCad), but I don't need to understand them now, fortunately As I only wanted to add a few parts until they (hopefully) appear in the official libraries, and I didn't want to have to avoid lots of other unofficial parts, I think I'll live with my temporary approach for now, which works for both MLCad and LDCad. As another off-topic comment, as I am honoured to receive a helpful comment from the author of LDCad, I can't miss the opportunity to thank you for writing and providing free such a great piece of software! I knew other LDraw-based editors were availlable, but had always thought I should learn MLCad reasonably well first before trying any others. But the 3-D model rotation system in MLCad was the aspect I've always found most awkward - I may have missed a setting that would have helped, but if I'd zoomed in to examine a partcular area of a complex model, the way it would re-centre the view each time I rotated the 3-D view was so annoying! This finally prompted me to try LDCad for the first time just a few days ago and it was very quickly obvious to me that it would be easier to use. I'm already trying out multi-part models, which I'd never got as far as attempting in MLCad. After working through your LDCad tutorial pages, the one thing I thought I was missing in LDCad was the ability to easily edit (eg re-order) parts in the underlying LDraw code - but then I discovered the Source window in LDCad, so I think it's got everything I need. And as a bonus, the rendering of the 3D view is sooo much better than MLCad! If there are any Technic builders (in particular) who are still using MLCad (perhaps I was the last one? ), I would definitely suggest giving LDCad a try.

Well I still don't understand the behaviour I was observing, where MLCad behaves differently for an 'administrator' and 'non-administrator' accounts (re User Account Control in Windows) when unofficial parts have been added to the database. But for the record in case it's of any use to others, I'll note what I've found as a way of avoiding the problem: To summarise, what I did first was to add unofficial parts (downloaded from LDraw.org) to the <LDRAWDIR>Unofficial\Parts and the <LDRAWDIR>Unofficial\Parts\s folders as appropriate, and then update the library (Scan Parts or mklist.exe). This resulted in: - MLCad: if I ran it as an Administrator, the unofficial parts I'd added appeared in the database and could be used just as normal. However, if I ran it using a non-Adminstrator account, the parts were in the parts available and could be added to a model, but their 3-D representations would be invisible on-screen. - LDView: The unofficial parts, once added to a model, could be seen properly in LDView, regardless of whether I ran it with Administrator rights or not. - LDCad: Since my first post in this thread above, I have installed LDCad for the first time and started using it. This of course uses the same installation of the LDraw parts library, so I was wondering what would happen in this program re the unoffical parts. In this case, the new parts did not appear, regardless of whether I ran LDCad as an administrator or not. In either case, unlike MLCad, the parts did not even seem to be available (even with invisible 3-D represntations) in the parts library. As my brief experience with LDCad, I decided that I liked it and would probably use it in preference to MLCad, so it was particularly disappointing that the unofficial parts I'd added did not show up in it at all. So I decided that I'd try a slightly more risky approach, and move the few unofficial parts I wanted into the 'official' parts folders in my installation to see if that made a difference. So I removed the 7 files I'd added to <LDRAWDIR>Unofficial\Parts and put them instead into <LDRAWDIR>Parts, and similarly for the 3 files I'd added to <LDRAWDIR>Unofficial\Parts\s. And I was pleased to see that having done this, the 'unofficial' parts now show up in MLCad, LDView and LDCad, even if I run them without Administrator rights! As I understand it, the potential problem witht his approach would be with future library updates when these parts are properly added to the official libraries. So I've kept a list of the 10 files, and will delete them from their official folders before I do the parts update that should add them officially, and hope that's enough.

Thanks for the reply. Out of interest, do you use an account with administrator privileges when you use MLCad? Or, like me, a more restricted user account (ie where you occasionally need to put the admin password in to make configuration changes on your pc)? Because my imported parts show up fine when I use an administrator account, it's only my normal account where they don't show on-screen. I'll have a go sometime at doing what you did to see if it makes a difference. I've not yet strayed into the whole area of 'multipart' models, nor LPUB3D - they're whole areas of the LDraw system that I need to understand better (especially to be able to properly use the LDraw models of the official Technic sets), but I've been putting off learning so far. After I wrote my post last night, it occurred to me that some of the different behaviour I was seeing (not just the disappearing unofficial parts but also the different Tree Configuration settings) may possibly be down to MLCad using the registry to store settings as is more common for modern software. I must admit I usually find .ini files easier to deal with but it's not the way most software works nowadays. Incidentally (co-incidentally I hope - I'm sure it's nothing to do with my blundering around with unofficial parts yesterday ), the whole LDraw.org domain seems to have gone offline today (I hope it's just a temporary thing of someone forgetting to pay the hosting bill rather than anything more permanent!) (And completely off-topic just for a moment, @1963maniac, can I just thank you for your work on the building instructions for Attika's 8880 Tribute model - I came across it recently when the thread was resurrected and have bookmarked it as something I'd really like to build at some point. Just like the whole LDraw/MLCad etc system, it's very generous of you all to make all your efforts available free for the Lego community to enjoy.)

Fantastic - a musical version of your Synchro Pods! I love these sort of creations - using the real 'technical' aspect of Technic! I was surprised to see the clutch gears at first because I thought jams would be unlikely, but that any slippage would make keeping the strikers in time a nightmare. But it then occurred to me that you'd probably use them to synchronise the machine in the first place - and you explained that in the second video. So what sensory version are you going to work on next after visual and audible? Or are you just working your way up to a full recreation of Babbage's Difference Engine?

I did so a couple of hours ago and have received a reply which said: "Hello Jon, Thanks for reaching out to us for such an important matter. This is indeed not an official LEGO® site and I'd advise you against using it and sites with a similar format! Taking the time to report it to us is much appreciated as feedback from fans like you lets us protect our customers from possible disappointments since we cannot guarantee the quality of the products and the service regarding such sites. For any similar situations in the future, or any other LEGO related questions, don't hesitate to contact us. ..." I assume that in time they'll be able to get the website taken down as it clearly infringes on their trademarks etc even attempts to spoof the whole Lego site to make visitors think they're dealing directly with Lego. In the short term, though, given this seems to have just sprung up today, I did think that Lego might have put a notice on Twitter, Facebbook etc alerting people to the scam, but I haven't seen anything yet. Perhaps they just don't want to draw people's attention to the scam website at all. I do wonder if anybody tries to buy something from that website, whether they receive fake good instead (eg Lepin, though that would presumably be pretty obvious as soon as it arrived - my understanding is that they don't provide boxes for a start). Given these people have no qualms about spoofing the Lego website so completely, I strongly suspect you may not receive anything at all, and the whole "business" behind it will disappear into thin air, with all the order money. This is interesting, and I did briefly wonder if they were trying to somehow get away with selling knock-off replicas by mentioning it in the small print. But are we looking at the same pages? Every page I look at clearly refers to Lego - the Mini Cooper page even states "This beautifully crafted LEGO® brick replica of the classic MINI Cooper Mk VII ..."

I noticed this website as someone else linked to the Porsche quoted on there at UK£140 - only just below the current lowest UK price (£150 at Argos) but way below what the official Lego UK store are still selling it (or trying to anyway!) for at £260. The real giveaway that this is not what it seems is that that website is claiming to sell the Bugatti at UK£140 - even though it's only recently released and over UK£300 just about everywhere according to Pricespy. The Shipping page - on what claims to be a UK sales website - also quotes times in EST and prices in $. And says "Your order can be shipped direct to you or a friend/relative in worldwide. Isn't that awesome?" My bold for emphasis, but I don't think this is how Lego would write this. I am just about 100% convinced that that whole website (elaborate though it undoubtedly is) is a scam.

More information on PF elements is available at the following link. It confirms that 8878 (the 'set' number for the rechargeable box) and 88000 the AAA box, are the same size. You may want to bear in mind though that the AAA battery box does not have the variable power control, and you will need to be able to access it sufficiently to remove the batteries for recharging, whereas as long as you can get a plug into the socket on 8878 you can recharge it in situ. https://www.lego.com/en-gb/powerfunctions/articles

In the UK Tesco Direct are currently selling: 42070 All Terrain Tow Truck for £131 https://www.tesco.com/direct/lego-technic-6x6-all-terrain-tow-truck-42070/183-7319.prd?promoId=promo53180063&skuId=183-7319 42069 Extreme Adventure for £83 https://www.tesco.com/direct/lego-technic-extreme-adventure-42069/173-9796.prd?promoId=promo53180063&skuId=173-9796 Sadly Tesco have announced they are going to close Tesco Direct in about a month's time, and I assume this is why they're cutting prices to get rid of their stock. Another often-competitively-priced outlet disappearing ...

Wonderful Lego implementation of a real bridge design (perhaps this was the inspiration?) : It's also been built in Meccano btw:

I presume you're referring again to the issue you mentioned further above that arose eg with the 8043 excavator. I don't think this issue is completely avoidable, as rotating the superstructure inevitably applies an unwanted turning motion to the other shaft(s) (whether concentric or not) that go through the turntable. I believe the best you can do is to gear up (or at least don't gear down) the shafts before they go through the turntable, then gear them down afterwards. In this way, any spurious rotation introduced by rotating the superstructure has a lesser effect on the other functions (eg steering, drive). Edit: Oops, posted the same answer almost simultaneously with emielroumen above.

Ah, yes, a weapon barrel, of course, how come I didn't think of that ... thanks and well done! Thanks once more aeh, I've got the parts list now. Just need to start saving up for some of the rarer parts (or work out what I can use instead!)

I greatly admired this model when you first uploaded the video - it's very clever, both in its original idea, and the mechanism using the differentials to achieve the close ratios. This is just what Lego Technic is about to me and thank you very much @aeh5040 for making the instructions freely available It will probably be a while before I have enough Lego to build this, but I have bookmarked it and downloaded the build instructions. In the meantime, there were a few parts I struggled to recognise in the parts list - can the OP or anyone else help with these questions please? : what part is the wheel/ring thing that appears just above the differential housing in the parts list (first used on page 2)? [Edit: pic: ] if I've identified them correctly, is it necessary specifically to use 3 of the Technic, Gear 16 Tooth (Old Style with Round Holes) rather than just 10 of Technic, Gear 16 Tooth (New Style Reinforced)? (The 3 old-style ones used on page 6 seem to perform the same function as the 3 new-style ones on page 19) And confirmation of the following: I've worked out that the long link is Technic, Link 1 x 16 I believe the tall 6x2 brick used in each counterweight is Boat Weight 2 x 6 x 2 - Bottom Sealed, Dimple on Ends [ Included here just for completeness, already identified by Blakbird above that the coloured pendulum bobs are Container, X-Pod Bottom Cap 9 x 9 x 1 ] Thanks again.

To recap, I bought two 8869 switches, unaware that the design had been changed last year to remove the direction switch. I complained to Lego, pointing out that what they sent me wasn't what was still being pictured on their website, and they immediately said that they would send me two "that have all the attributes pictured". The two new switches arrived today, and (not to my complete surprise, I have to say) they are exactly the same as the ones I had already been sent - still missing the direction switch. So I emailed them again and got an immediate phone call, confirming as I expected that the design had been changed, they no longer had stocks of the old ones, I had been told in error that they could send me the old style ones, etc. So I pointed out that they were being a bit naughty not updating the two (at least) webpages that still showed the old design and even described in detail the function of the direction switch that is no longer there. She agreed that it should be changed. I think I might have another look in a month or so ... At least I get to keep 4 of the new-style switches, having only paid for two. Interestingly, the reason that she gave for the change was that Lego had found that users didn't really have a use for the direction switch. Unfortunately that seems to disagree with what @Mark Bellis said in the other thread, so that just sounds like bol.. oops I mean 'marketingspeak' PS Although I said above I would update the thread with pictures, it's not really worth it, it would be the most pointless game of 'Spot the Difference' ever ...

I recently bought several PF items from the online Lego shop, including 2 of the Control Switches (8869). The advertised item on shop.lego.com looks just like the one on the Specifications page of the main Lego website (https://www.lego.com/en-us/powerfunctions/articles/8869-control-b71751d95f0a422da2838a91c9093874) which has a small black direction switch as well as the main large orange switch, and the webpage specifically refers to the direction switch. However, both of the switches I was sent are missing the black direction switch! Other than that, they look identical to the design of switch on the two webpages. I have emailed Lego to say I am not happy with this, but I also searched online, expecting to find that they had changed the design, but I found nothing about it. Does anyone know what is going on? Have I been sent very old stock (the date moulded on the bottom is 2007) perhaps from before the switch was added? Or have they recently changed the design to remove the switch, but sneakily not updated any of their own marketing pages to reflect this? I can easily envisage a situation where I would need to use the direction switch to get the desired result, so I'm definitely not happy that my switches don't have them.

With a bit more searching on Eurobricks I finally found the thread from March 2016 about this issue (http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/126624-new-powerfunction-switch-module/), and a separate short item attempting to bring it to the attention of the Ambassadors program (http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/126902-removal-of-reverse-switch-from-polarity-reverser-8869/), apparently without result . So apparently Lego changed the design in early 2016 and started issuing the new item without the direction switch, but as of April 2017 they still have not changed the picture on the Lego Shop (https://shop.lego.com/en-GB/LEGO-Power-Functions-Control-Switch-8869) or even worse, the Specifications page on the main Lego website which specifically describes the function of the direction switch (https://www.lego.com/en-us/powerfunctions/articles/8869-control-b71751d95f0a422da2838a91c9093874). I must admit I'm pretty disgusted by this. (Being new [again] to Lego, is this typical of how TLG behaves?) I started to draft a reply to Customer Services about it, but have decided to wait until they have done something about my order before I take it any further. When I receive the 'replacements' I will update this thread with details and pictures. In my original post above, I knew the date I was referring to was the copyright date - I (obviously mistakenly) thought that Lego might change the (C) date if they changed the design of the piece. Also, I was unsure whether the production date stamp on my two switches (21N6) referred to 2016 or 2006 (before I knew which way the change had been made I thought perhaps I'd accidentally been sent very old stock). I presume mine are in fact 2016 (I haven't been able to find out - does the letter 'N' in the production date stamp indicate anything?)

I too strongly suspect this logo is a custom vector graphic (so that it can be scaled without losing detail) rather than the name rendered in a specific font (although the graphic design could well have been influenced by a particular font). I believe one reason it is often done this way is that it helps to protect a registered trademark, if the logo cannot easily be recreated using a standard font. Another reason in this particular case though is because of the unusual ligature 'ch', and the way the tails of the 'e' and the final 'c' are extended beyond where they would normally terminate in an italic font (even with kerning). The font DrJB refers to on the Rotring pens is based on that employed for the ISO lettering stencils that were used with those pens. The ISO font is similar to the Lego logo above in that it has 'rounded' ends (eg like Arial MT Rounded) as you would expect from the shape of the pen's nib. However the Rotring stencils and the ISO font they used specifically eliminated letter strokes joining at acute angles (to minimise the wet ink strokes bleeding together at such junctions). The Technic logo above has a couple of these in the 'h' and the ''n that would be rendered quite differently in the Rotring font. However, given the subject matter, it seems quite likely that the graphic designer of the Technic logo was specifically aiming for the 'technical drawing' feel of the ISO font. PS aeh5040, is this geeky enough for you yet?

Well much to my surprise, Lego emailed me back within 20 minutes (even though it was > 21:30 here; they must have support people in the US picking up global emails I think), and have said that they will send me two of the switches as shown on the website. That's sort of what I was hoping for (with luck I may end up with 2 of each type), but I will wait to see what really turns up first - whether they still have got some of the old types in stock somewhere. There is nothing on the new order that they have created to show that the next two should be any different to the last two ... They didn't say anything about how it had happened either - whether they had changed the design, and if so why the website did not show the updated version. (I did wonder if my PC was showing an old cached version of the webpages but I've checked it on 3 devices and it seems they're definitely still showing a picture of the version with the direction switch, which is a bit naughty if they've changed the design.)

In addition to the points made above by Limga and Blakbird about the cost of the 8878 rechargeable box (UK£43), there is also the outrageous price that Lego charge for the official transformer required to recharge it (an extra UK£25). It's reasonable enough not to include the transformer with the rechargeable pack itself as some people may want more than one pack but only need one charger, but most people (like me) think the transformer is massively over-priced (even by TLC standards )

I like a challenge! I've not tried this with real pieces, so I hope I've got this correct. I think this method is possible; it took me a while to work it out in my head. Perhaps someone with 6 unused 5x7 frames can test these instructions and let me know whether they work

Well I'll go in a different direction to most other people Based on the above definition I have a grand total of: 1 ... spare part (a speed remote control that I bought on EBay to use with 42030)

Well I know that other have worked out how to build the larger cube, and that the instructions have already been done somewhere, but as I couldn't find them from the links quoted above I thought I'd have a go at them myself. I also didn't have enough 'dogbones' to build it for real without disassembling 2 of my 3 Technic sets, so it was also a useful 3D 'thought experiment' for my brain (assisted by MLCad, which I've only just started using, so this was good practice on that too). In my theoretical build I used 18 blue 3L long pins - I assume the picture above is using the same part (#6558) but in black? For MLCad I took the rather unorthodox approach of using artificial colours, as it helped me see the symmetry in the pieces. So all the pieces in practice are either #6558 (18 of, blue/black) or #14720 (6 of, LBG) regardless of the colours in the graphic below: I think it should be much easier than suggested above to take this cube apart. You could grip the middle portion of each with pliers, but I think in practice the 'inboard' end of each pin is opposite an open pinhole in the adjacent frame, and so could be pushed out through that hole using an axle. E.g. the three pins shown in yellow (another reason to use false colours!) that are pushed up from below in step 7 of my graphic, can be pushed back down through the holes in the top frame (shown in light blue). Without having built it, I initially thought that once assembled 'legally' as shown, it might be possible to collapse the cube further by carefully and simultaneously pushing on all 6 faces, thereby taking up the slack middle 1L in each of the 3L pins. However, thinking about it more and experimenting using MLCad, this is NOT possible, as the 5L length of each dogbone effectively keeps two of the adjacent dogbones a fixed distance apart.