Erik Leppen

Eurobricks Knights
  • Content count

    904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Erik Leppen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Game development, roller coasters, mathematics, LEGO

Extra

  • Country
    Netherlands
  • Special Tags 1
    http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/public/style_images/tags/technic_bronze.png
  1. What makes this cool is this entire progress you can follow. It's not just a truck, it's a journey into Lego building :) If you see where you started, I think you have come a long way already. I also like how the scale has become somewhat smaller than you started with. I thought the original was too big to work and look good. The new, somewhat narrower version, works and looks a lot better. I do feel for those universal joints though, coming from the motor that controls the dump bed. There's a lot of force on them. You might want to go with gears instead. (This also gives you the opportunity to gear it down a bit, so that it's slower, but stronger). By the way, if you're looking for ways to make the dump bed lighter, have you considered [url=https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=48288#T=C]8 x 16 tiles[/url]? For your next project, I'd suggest you try experimenting with panels instead of beams for the cabin. Panels help making the shapes rounder and they weigh less. Looking forward to further progress on this. Make sure to enjoy the ride! :)
  2. I'm starting to like this model more and more. Great work, also on the color scheme and detailing. But I don't like the gray 5 x 7 frame on top of the cabin. I think you could do with some black here, and achieve better detail with smaller parts. Also, I wouldn't go with the inverted gray 5 x 11 panels. They might "fit" your reference model, but they just look wrong. Rathre than trying to follow the reference, I'd just try to build a nice model. Just a suggestion: use white panels, and replace the top two panels by 3 x 11 ones. This leaves a gap of 2 x 22 studs. Try to fill this with white grill tiles. (although I'm not sure about having a single studded detail only. You might want to use studded pieces elsewhere to make it more coherent). The other alternative is to fill it with white round pin joiners, or 1 x 2 x 0.5 beams placed vertically on black axles with small spaces between. Then you hvae a fully studless solution that breaks the huge white side with some detailing without having to resort to inverted gray panels :)
  3. These instructions look so great, really wonderful! Even better, I have almost all of the parts. I might really build this one when I get the time, just to learn from it. So many thanks for making this! (I may change the front suspension though, I don't like the stress it puts on the 4 x 0.5 liftarms)
  4. Doesn't that pump setup not overstretch the blue pump? he distance between the two holes is more than 6 studs, after all. Also I think you should brace the other end of the red axle, or it will come off during pumping.
  5. Really nice start. I hope you can get it to look nice with all the tubing. After all, you need six already :) How are the gray 1 x 2 beams braced that hold the top of the single yellow cylinder that bends the arm?
  6. I think for these machines, the actual proportions are less important than the functions. So I'd also vote for a wider ladder, to make it look like an actual ladder. An axle with equally spaced 1 x 2 x 0.5 liftarms will probably do. Anyhow, great progress, I really look forward to seeing this develop.
  7. I really like this car, WPE. I don't know much about the real Porsche 914, but your car in itself looks great. I like the studded finishings at the bumpers and the various other places. I also like the pop-up headlights (I like the single ones best). By the way, good use of the 3 x 5 ellipse liftarm at the front indicators. I'm surprised the mix of studs and beams works so well. Imagine what would happen if you were to cover up the studs with some tiles and curved slopes (the [url=http://img.bricklink.com/ItemImage/PL/85970.png]1x10 curved slope[/url] in particular comes to mind). The only thing I'm not fond of is the wheel arches. They look quite thin in comparison. But I don't see an easy way to fix that. Also, instead of U-joints you might want to us egray angle connectors at the top of the windscreen and behind the "rollbar". I'm not fond of using axles for springs, because I'd be afraid of damaging the axle. But I understand you're working with a limited parts inventory :) All in all: great first post here on EB - welcome and I hope to see more of you in the future!
  8. I find the answers in this topic quite surprising. Am I really the only person whose models won't stay together more than a few weeks? If I finished a model, I make a CAD file of it, and some photos, and it goes back into parts. That way I don't have to keep spending ever more money and ever more space on the hobby. The additional benefit of this is that whenever I start a MOC, I have my complete collection of pieces available, so I [b]know what I have[/b]. If I keep all kinds of stuff assembled, my available inventory changes all the time, and I don't like that. Also, LEGO is meant for building. Not for building only once and then letting it collect dust.
  9. Also, when you have some progress, don't be afraid of showing it here on the forums for feedback. That way you can get feedback specific to [i]your[/i] build.
  10. [quote name='nguyengiangoc' timestamp='1472200660' post='2644829'] Thanks Blakbird for the amazing review. Can you calculate the gear ratio from the motor to the conveyor belts, to the tracks, and to the slewing ring? [/quote] With all the pictures and renders, you could do this yourself :)
  11. I own neither, but if I compare 8070 and 42056, I'd say 8070 is much more of a [b]Technic[/b] set. It has half the parts (and less than half the price) but more functions. Yes, the functions may not be realistic, but it does plenty of things and has enough complexity for a 1300-part set and you can always start modding (and it has a nice alternative model, which the Porsche lacks). The Porsche is much more of a display set, and orange parts pack. So if you're looking for orange parts, get the Porsche. But when I saw 42056's instructions, I was left rather unimpressed. It's mostly beam stacking and panelling. 8070, to me, looks much more technically interesting. [quote name='Elsior' timestamp='1472178367' post='2644705'] Thanks for the feedback everyone. What should I get if I want to do MOC supercar? The Porsche looks amazing, but for that price I can get 2 8070s. [/quote] In that case, you'd be better of with 8070 plus another car set, e.g. 42000 (if you can still get it for a reasonable price) or 42039. These have no gearbox, but plenty of nice parts for MOCcing.
  12. What's important here, I think, is the realization "first comes the skill, then comes the money". With that I mean, if you want to earn money doing some thing X, [i]first[/i] you should be good at doing X (where "good" means "better than people doing it for free". So, in the case of creating LEGO building instructions, first make sure you're better than me ). You can't start earning money before you get good, because if you aren't good, people won't pay you. So, instead of picking something you want to earn money with, and then trying to become good, turn it upside down. Do what you [b]like to do[/b], and show the world, and learn from the experience. Then, over the years, you will become better and better at it. And then, after lots and lots of time, you [i]might[/i] consider earning money doing that. I did this with game development. I started somewhere around the year 1999, [i]with no financial motivation[/i] (it's just a hobby), and over the years I became good enough to make it into a job. The first income arrived in 2012.
  13. I don't get all this hassle over the rules. If a model is considered a good model in the spirit of a compo, it gets votes. If it's somehow flawed or unfitting, it won't. Can't we just trust the voters on selecting good pneumatic models [i]without[/i] requiring additional rules? I mean, it's a pneumatic contest. Of course you'll have to use pneumatic for the core of your model. Duh. Isn't that obvious from the competition theme? A good mechanical model shouldn't get as much votes as a good pneumatic model, however good it is, because hte voters intuitively understand that it will be unfitting. Really, just build a good model focusing on pneumatics, and be done with it.
  14. Neat idea. Certainly in line with the competition. I hope you get it to work. What I think would work is mount the blue rods at 90 degrees relative to each other, so that when one rod is at a dead point, the other is perpendicular. Then, you get a four-stroke kind of sequence: cylinder 1 extends cylinder 2 extends cylinder 1 retracts cylinder 2 retracts It's the same as a V4 engine. Then, you might even have the axle of the wheels drive a crankshaft that will control the pneumatic valves that will inturn drive the cylinders. Similar to what 8868's B model is doing. Maybe you should check that out, it's one of the most brilliant sysems in an official set ever.
  15. This is a great theme for a competition. [list] [*]I don't have time [*]I don't have the parts [/list] I mean, given these two facts, they can better happen both during the [i]same[/i] competition :) That was a bit of a joke, because, it's actually too bad. I never build pneumatics, but a compo would have been a good way to try it once. But I'd have to get the parts first anyway. I sold all my pneumatics last year. But I'm definitely looking forward to seeing all the entries people will come up with. This is bound to stir the creativity in people, especially those who are more "gear-oriented", like me :)