42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

[Black_Belt_Titan]

In case anyone was wondering what this set looks like all laid out

 

[Ngoc Nguyen]

That's a scheisse-tonnes amount of parts!

[Magical Duck]

Not even the BWE could handle that many parts... 

[TeamThrifty]

@Black_Belt_Titan Your patience is exceptional!! Great picture though!

[Jzawesak]

2 hours ago, Black_Belt_Titan said:

In case anyone was wondering what this set looks like all laid out

 

 

Oh Jeez, how long it took to you make this?

Edited August 10, 2018 by Jzawesak

[Maaboo the Witch]

10 minutes ago, Jzawesak said:

Oh Jeez, how long it took to you make this?

Probably more time than it would take to just build the thing. 

[TheRacker]

Wait why does this set have LBG 3 and 5 axles? Aren't they supposed to be yellow now? Not that I mind the more universal and dull grey of course.

[WvG_853]

3 hours ago, Black_Belt_Titan said:

In case anyone was wondering what this set looks like all laid out

 

This reminds me the art of Ursus Wehrli. Check out some of his works “tidying up art”: https://www.boredpanda.com/the-art-of-clean-up-by-ursus-wehrli/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

[Bartybum]

It’s a great parts pack for people starting out.

The specialised pieces are just quite boring and sparse - LAs, turntable, portal hubs (yuck) and curved racks. Save for the last one it’s just more of the same.

[Black_Belt_Titan]

2 hours ago, Jzawesak said:

Oh Jeez, how long it took to you make this?

I think laying out the pieces took around 8 hours and all the prior sorting was several more hours.

 

2 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

Probably more time than it would take to just build the thing. 

The build took me just shy of 14 hours so I think the build time is still more than the sorting and laying out time.

[Bublehead]

Ok, been working on this thing this evening. My first impressions so far-  Ok, the density of the model is pretty high, and there are some interesting build techniques but it did let me know one thing personally-  my own skills as a designer/engineer are not shabby when I compare this model to my own MOCs.  Now before people start ragging on me for this observation, let me just add, I am not tooting my own horn here, I only state this because I found a lot of similarities in the constructs of this model and how I design. The drive train to slew the turntable is a interesting built-up gear box that seems to be a mechcanincs 101 primer on how to minimize the number of journal bearings and still produce a high torque output to move the upper superstructure.  I was faced with similar challenges and the solution was a built up gearbox nightmare similar to the one under the turntable.  So far, I am enjoying the build, way better than the BWE and even better than the Chiron, which was an interesting model, but lacked a lot of functionality other than the shifter mechanism and gearbox. At least here we are faced with more power delivery/routing and it’s all mechanical not just threading 15 PF wires through the superstructure and plugging them into hubs or controllers.

[Lipko]

Speaking about solutions and techniques, those 3 frames stacked on to of each other in the axles burns my eyes. For me, this and the Chiron are a bad sign of the degrading building quality. 

[TeamThrifty]

1 hour ago, Lipko said:

those 3 frames stacked on to of each other in the axles burns my eyes

Ha! they don't look great do they.. i've got a moc kicking around at the minute that nearly had the same thing... i swapped the middle one out for 7L lift arms just because it didn't feel right! Even then, stacking frames and lift arms isn't much better. But in reality, why not. Its strong and works... but feels wrong.

[Lipko]

10 minutes ago, TeamThrifty said:

Ha! they don't look great do they.. i've got a moc kicking around at the minute that nearly had the same thing... i swapped the middle one out for 7L lift arms just because it didn't feel right! Even then, stacking frames and lift arms isn't much better. But in reality, why not. Its strong and works... but feels wrong.

I works, of course, but it seems to increase part count and weight for no real benefit. That was just one example by the way.

[erikhortsch]

On 8/10/2018 at 11:38 AM, J_C said:

could someone who has 42042 and 42082 (built at the moment (I hardly ever keep the models built for long time ) please take a picture of them together? thank you.

[Maaboo the Witch]

The chassis is gigantic compared to 42042's tracked undercarriage but I think that's about it. Nice photos though! Did you enjoy building it, @erikhortsch?

[erikhortsch]

Yeah fun build! I might like the 42042 more just because i like crawlers more 

 

Superstructure is a fair bit bigger too. Definitely more dense weight wise and piece wise, pics make them seem close but the added heft and maybe 20% bigger scale makes the new one feel much bigger

Edited August 12, 2018 by erikhortsch

[erikhortsch]

[nerdsforprez]

1 hour ago, erikhortsch said:

Yeah fun build! I might like the 42042 more just because i like crawlers more 

 

Superstructure is lots bigger too, pics make them seem close but they aeent really

I also think that it is imporant to remeber that the relationship between piece count and scale are not linear.  Difference between, say, 1/10 scale vs versus 1/8 scale is approximately double the piece count. Take for example paul b's vampire gt versus sheepos mustang (which really other than the transmission, was not a dense build).  Approx 1700 pieces versus 4000 respectively.  

[Bublehead]

9 hours ago, Lipko said:

Speaking about solutions and techniques, those 3 frames stacked on top of each other in the axles burns my eyes. For me, this and the Chiron are a bad sign of the degrading building quality. 

I agree, the stacked frames make me wonder if this is just a solution that was looking for a problem, instead of a problem with a good solution?  The gearbox for the turntable slew was a better piece of engineering.  I enjoy the rigidity of frames, and they do solve a lot of structural integrity issues when used, but stacking three just to make a differential housing was like over-overkill. 

[TeamThrifty]

13 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

piece count and scale are not linear

piece count goes up to the cube.. double (halve?) the scale quadruple the pieces. It will be linear to the volume (assuming similar piece density)... cos it is quite literally a volume! External measurements define a container thats 'filled' with pieces, same as a container filled with water..

[J_C]

16 hours ago, erikhortsch said:

 

Thank you!

[Erik Leppen]

1 hour ago, TeamThrifty said:

double (halve?) the scale quadruple the pieces.

Double thd scale, 8x the pieces. 2 cubed is 2x2x2 = 8, not 4.

[TeamThrifty]

Exactly!! (doh!.. not had any coffee). I even used the word volume and still didn't notice... well spotted!

[Aleh]

5 hours ago, TeamThrifty said:

piece count goes up to the cube.. double (halve?) the scale quadruple the pieces. It will be linear to the volume (assuming similar piece density)... cos it is quite literally a volume! External measurements define a container thats 'filled' with pieces, same as a container filled with water..

Maybe it's because my English, but scale is cube. Increasing scale by 1 point will increase piece count by 3, Not in 3 times, but you need to raise it to the power of three.

and quadruple will multiplu piece count by four 

And a question: What I've just wrote?

Volume literally is a correct explanation how piece count depends.