Studless techniques

[Burf2000]

Hello all

As you may or may not know I am a die hard fan of studded building however I fancy building something purely studless.

Does anyone have any good links to building techniques? I want to build a largish structure which is built up of cubes( for strength)

Any tips, tricks etc would be great.

[Rook]

Go to Flickr and look at images of MOCs.

EB

http://www.flickr.com/groups/1483844@N21/

TBB

http://www.flickr.com/groups/lego/pool/with/6127962220/

And use the search option for what you need.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Rook

[Burf2000]

Sorry I mean technic studless techniques, your links I believe don't help?

[DLuders]

You could make many of these cubic Lego Dice, and pin them together:

[Burf2000]

You could make many of these cubic Lego Dice, and pin them together:

Thats pretty cool, I mean general technic techniques, is there anything I should know. So if you needed to build a large cube out of studless beams, how would you do it?

[Blakbird]

Thats pretty cool, I mean general technic techniques, is there anything I should know. So if you needed to build a large cube out of studless beams, how would you do it?

The best lessons on generic techniques come from buying new (or used) studless sets and building them. If you don't want to (or can't) do this, then download some official instructions and look through them.

[DLuders]

I would use the Lego Technic Connectors below with Lego Technic Liftarms:

[Burf2000]

Ok so there not any good guides etc. I build hundreds of models but thought there were some cool techniques.

I use all the pasts in the picture except the first one all the time. Please don't get me wrong, I am far far from a newbie, just wanted to up my skills.

[Splat]

You could download the Lego Technic Tora no Maki book by ISOGAWA Yoshihito.

It introduces a wide range of information, from basic assembly using LEGO Technic parts to applied techniques.

Perhaps you can find some inspiration in there. You can download the book for free in PDF format, but if you like the book, remember to make a payment of US$10.

[Erik Leppen]

Please don't get me wrong, I am far far from a newbie, just wanted to up my skills.

Practice, practice, practice. I think that's all I can say...

But, what skills? Is it about gear systems, about structures, adding detail, ....? Or just, studless building in general?

Also, Lego has instructions of their sets on their website. Go to homepage, at the bottom below Customer Service choose Building Instructions. I always look at instructions of Technic sets I decide not to buy, just to see if there's interesting techniques I can use. If you do not own 8258 I think that one is very interesting.

[Burf2000]

You could download the Lego Technic Tora no Maki book by ISOGAWA Yoshihito.

Perhaps you can find some inspiration in there. You can download the book for free in PDF format, but if you like the book, remember to make a payment of US$10.

Thanks, downloading now, have no problem paying $10 if useful

[Ape Fight]

Hello all

As you may or may not know I am a die hard fan of studded building however I fancy building something purely studless.

Does anyone have any good links to building techniques? I want to build a largish structure which is built up of cubes( for strength)

Any tips, tricks etc would be great.

The magic 5:2 SNOT ratio is pretty much all you need for brick building in my opinion. Studless Technic though, I'm trying to figure that one out at the moment!

Edited September 9, 2011 by Ape Fight

[Blakbird]

The magic 5:2 SNOT ratio is pretty much all you need for brick building in my opinion. Studless Technic though, I'm trying to figure that one out at the moment!

At right angles, studless building geometry is pretty obvious. It is the diagonals that get tricky. The only magic ratio is for the 3:4:5 right triangle. If you have 3 studs horizontal and 4 studs vertical offset, you can connect them with a 5 stud diagonal (or multiple thereof).

Edited September 9, 2011 by Blakbird

[Sokratesz]

That is 4:5:6 ;)

[Erik Leppen]

That is 4:5:6 ;)

No it's 3:4:5. When studless building you really need to get used to counting from the centers of the holes, and not the ends of the beams, as the actual pivot points are the centers of holes and these are 3, 4 and 5 studs apart. 3:4:5 is a right triangle because 3² + 4² = 5² (Pythagoras). Similar you have 5² + 12² = 13² and you will notice that if you build a 5:12:13 triangle it will have a right angle as well. And this means you need beams of 6, 13 and 14, but the distances are 5, 12 and 13. Get used to this way of measuring distances, otherwise the math won't work out ;)

I also sometimes use 4:7:8 and 4:8:9 as those are almost right.

Edit: another two cool things about the 3:4:5 triangle is that it has the same angles as the bent liftarm parts, and also it allows for an additional connection at the incenter of the triangle, like this:

(click for larger image). This way you can recreate the angle without having to recreate the whole triangle.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Erik Leppen

[Sokratesz]

No it's 3:4:5. When studless building you really need to get used to counting from the centers of the holes, and not the ends of the beams, as the actual pivot points are the centers of holes and these are 3, 4 and 5 studs apart. 3:4:5 is a right triangle because 3² + 4² = 5² (Pythagoras). Similar you have 5² + 12² = 13² and you will notice that if you build a 5:12:13 triangle it will have a right angle as well. And this means you need beams of 6, 13 and 14, but the distances are 5, 12 and 13. Get used to this way of measuring distances, otherwise the math won't work out ;)

I also sometimes use 4:7:8 and 4:8:9 as those are almost right.

Edit: another two cool things about the 3:4:5 triangle is that it has the same angles as the bent liftarm parts, and also it allows for an additional connection at the incenter of the triangle, like this:

(click for larger image). This way you can recreate the angle without having to recreate the whole triangle.

Of course but it won't do you much good if you explain it like that to someone, and he starts looking for a 4 length studless beam and then discovers it doesn't fit ;)

Edited September 10, 2011 by Sokratesz

[DLuders]

3² + 4² = 5² (i.e., 9 + 16 = 25).

It is not true that 4² + 5² = 6². 16 + 25 = 41 (not 36).

[Sokratesz]

3² + 4² = 5² (i.e., 9 + 16 = 25).

It is not true that 4² + 5² = 6². 16 + 25 = 41 (not 36).

I know my basic maths, thank you very much :)

[CP5670]

I also sometimes use 4:7:8 and 4:8:9 as those are almost right.

I wonder how much "error" TLG considers to be acceptable in angular connections. I think 3:4:5 and 5:12:13 are the only configurations that work out exactly (within the standard beam lengths), but they have used many other lengths and angles in official sets before, even long before studless building became common.

[mescalinum]

At right angles, studless building geometry is pretty obvious. It is the diagonals that get tricky. The only magic ratio is for the 3:4:5 right triangle. If you have 3 studs horizontal and 4 studs vertical offset, you can connect them with a 5 stud diagonal (or multiple thereof).

thank god you are wrong

I used a CLP solver to find all the integer solutions of A²+B²=C² (with C<=40), which are:

A = 3, B = 4, C = 5 ;

A = 5, B = 12, C = 13 ;

A = 7, B = 24, C = 25 ;

A = 8, B = 15, C = 17 ;

A = 12, B = 35, C = 37 ;

A = 20, B = 21, C = 29 ;

(I omitted multiples of the above solutions)

of course there are more if the constraint on C is omitted, but the bigger size becomes non-interesting for technic building.

EDIT: note for myself - logic program used: ?- A*A + B*B #= C*C, A #> 0, B #> A, C in 2..40, label([A,B,C]), 1 =:= gcd(A,B).

Edited September 10, 2011 by mescalinum

[Sokratesz]

thank god you are wrong

I used a CLP solver to find all the integer solutions of A²+B²=C² (with C<=40), which are:

A = 3, B = 4, C = 5 ;

A = 5, B = 12, C = 13 ;

A = 7, B = 24, C = 25 ;

A = 8, B = 15, C = 17 ;

A = 12, B = 35, C = 37 ;

A = 20, B = 21, C = 29 ;

(I omitted multiples of the above solutions)

of course there are more if the constraint on C is omitted, but the bigger size becomes non-interesting for technic building.

EDIT: note for myself - logic program used: ?- A*A + B*B #= C*C, A #> 0, B #> A, C in 2..40, label([A,B,C]), 1 =:= gcd(A,B).

And how much are there with say, a 5% error margin? 90 degrees doesn't always have to be exactly 90 ;)

[mescalinum]

And how much are there with say, a 5% error margin? 90 degrees doesn't always have to be exactly 90 ;)

LOTS :)

for 2-15L beams are the following:

A=3, B=4, C=5, E%=0.0

A=3, B=5, C=6, E%=4.247281921415941

A=4, B=6, C=7, E%=3.981468553857736

A=4, B=7, C=8, E%=1.1368814485401577

A=4, B=8, C=9, E%=0.9947588739668036

A=4, B=9, C=10, E%=2.653350514743112

A=4, B=10, C=11, E%=3.981468553857752

A=5, B=5, C=7, E%=1.273324442653995

A=5, B=6, C=8, E%=3.1844266473320695

A=5, B=9, C=10, E%=4.247281921415925

A=5, B=10, C=11, E%=2.547158639950974

A=5, B=11, C=12, E%=1.1575542782836281

A=5, B=12, C=13, E%=0.0

A=5, B=13, C=14, E%=0.9794536742288548

A=5, B=14, C=15, E%=1.8191611975308635

A=6, B=7, C=9, E%=3.0326695964207633

A=6, B=8, C=10, E%=0.0

A=6, B=9, C=11, E%=2.3583904023815054

A=6, B=10, C=12, E%=4.247281921415941

A=6, B=12, C=13, E%=4.867809714035584

A=6, B=13, C=14, E%=3.674846866300909

A=6, B=14, C=15, E%=2.65335051474308

A=7, B=7, C=10, E%=1.2993142284600543

A=7, B=8, C=11, E%=4.551159731280355

A=7, B=9, C=11, E%=4.551159731280371

A=7, B=10, C=12, E%=2.2741256640806284

A=7, B=11, C=13, E%=0.41339236776909477

A=7, B=12, C=14, E%=1.1368814485401895

A=7, B=13, C=15, E%=2.449141671080023

A=8, B=8, C=11, E%=3.483252093800486

A=8, B=9, C=12, E%=0.44210061759915537

A=8, B=10, C=13, E%=1.9897607325877213

A=8, B=11, C=14, E%=3.981468553857752

A=8, B=12, C=14, E%=3.981468553857736

A=8, B=13, C=15, E%=2.449141671080039

A=9, B=9, C=13, E%=2.7516829051560086

A=9, B=10, C=13, E%=4.247281921415925

A=9, B=11, C=14, E%=1.929446195486564

A=9, B=12, C=15, E%=0.0

A=10, B=10, C=14, E%=1.273324442653995

A=10, B=11, C=15, E%=1.1575542782836439

A=11, B=11, C=15, E%=4.475808710688022

EDIT: note for myself - logic program used: ?- findall(_, (between(1,15,A), between(A,15,B), between(B,15,C), B<C, C<A+B, Gamma is acos((A*A+B*B-C*C)/(2*A*B))*45/atan(1), ErrorPercent is abs(90-Gamma)*100/90, ErrorPercent < 5, write('A='), write(A), write(', B='), write(B), write(', C='), write©, write(', E%='), writeln(ErrorPercent)), _).

[Front]

I wonder how much "error" TLG considers to be acceptable in angular connections. I think 3:4:5 and 5:12:13 are the only configurations that work out exactly (within the standard beam lengths), but they have used many other lengths and angles in official sets before, even long before studless building became common.

You will be able to find connections in official sets, where the math don't really fit a 100 %. I don't have any examples ready, but a recent set (a truck) had a cabin where the beams where stretched slightly to fit.

[mescalinum]

You will be able to find connections in official sets, where the math don't really fit a 100 %. I don't have any examples ready, but a recent set (a truck) had a cabin where the beams where stretched slightly to fit.

as Sokratesz suggested (nice idea!) I posted a list of triangles that make an almost right triangle.

an error margin of 1% or less (like 8-4-9) is not noticeable at all

[Sokratesz]

You should draw a graph of the error margins, cause I'm seeing a pattern :D