42114 - 6x6 Volvo Articulated Hauler

[suffocation]

23 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

The problem with PU is that solutions are in "software" (programming) rather than in "hardware" (gears and axles and beams). This means we can't "see" the solution work, and, therefore, can't learn from it.

PF is superior because with PF the hidden parts are "dumb" and all the "intelligence" is in the build itself, which can be touched, handled, seen in motion, modified, ...

Said otherwise, PU removes part of the educational aspect of Technic.

Nailed it

[Maaboo the Witch]

C+ is TLG's attempt to stay relevant in the age of smartphones. No more, no less.

[Rudivdk]

30 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

If you want to remote controll all functions simultaneously -> At least one motor for one function is the way to go.

Absolutely true, but I personally do not like this as the way forward for LEGO Technic. There are other toys out there doing the RC thing much better because they were designed to be RC in every aspect. With LEGO, RC feels to be forced into a building system that excells in other things, rather than being RC. Like @Erik Leppen said above...

Edited June 3, 2020 by Rudivdk
Rephrasing some statements

[Bartybum]

I think RC gearboxes need to be more heavily employed. Not every RC vehicle needs to be able to use all functions at once.

[Gimmick]

18 minutes ago, Rudivdk said:

Absolutely true, but I personally do not like this as the way forward for LEGO Technic. There are other toys out there doing the RC thing much better because they were designed to be RC in every aspect. With LEGO, RC feels to be forced into a building system that excells in other things, rather than being RC. Like @Erik Leppen said above...

I'm also not a fan of Lego RC models in general, but:

It is a dump truck. Without RC there would be a HOD steering and a motor for the dump bed or a pneumatic system (would be nice :( ). There is literally exactly one function in this model and it doesn't even need a gearbox. You lose nothing in this case if you RC it. The use of "direct steering" and not using actuators has nothing to do with PU/PF.

If it's more of a general criticism:

"PU features" that are currently used:

- Servo replacement

- avoid self-collision through callibration

- Gearbox replacement for different speeds

Classic "smart and mechanical" solutions without "magic" programming:

- Servo

- Self collision with clutch gear

- Gearbox with Servo - but not in a model of that size.

 

-> Yes, it is possible to simplify the mechanics with PU. Has it ever realistically happend? No. With PU things are possible that cannot be done with PF, so the obvious solution is: Expand the possibilities of mechanics with the features of PU.

[Rudivdk]

3 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

or a pneumatic system (would be nice :( )

I guess this nails it, at least for me. I am old fashioned and like my builds mostly mechanical. PU/C+ is what the current relevant market demands, I'm just not part of that group.

So we arrived at a point were we are all just venting our opinions on RC and motor systems here, but this is the Volvo Hauler topic. We can discuss electrics in other topics, let's get back to the actual set at hand...

[Andman]

 

6 hours ago, Gimmick said:

I don't think that's the case. In fact I think PU adds a lot to the educational aspect.

It would, if there would be proper documentation for the powered up app. It was @kbalage instead of TLG, who dug deep into the possibilities of this app. And this app, at least for me, is still experimental in regards of the code blocks.

6 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

The problem with PU is that solutions are in "software" (programming) rather than in "hardware" (gears and axles and beams). This means we can't "see" the solution work, and, therefore, can't learn from it.

PF is superior because with PF the hidden parts are "dumb" and all the "intelligence" is in the build itself, which can be touched, handled, seen in motion, modified, ...

Said otherwise, PU removes part of the educational aspect of Technic.

And TLG missed, for whatever reason, the chance to supply proper educational and easy to use stuff with the powered up app.

[TeamThrifty]

 

7 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

The problem with PU is that solutions are in "software" (programming) rather than in "hardware" (gears and axles and beams). This means we can't "see" the solution work, and, therefore, can't learn from it.

PF is superior because with PF the hidden parts are "dumb" and all the "intelligence" is in the build itself, which can be touched, handled, seen in motion, modified, ...

Depends what you want to learn?

Software is the way the 'real' world is now, for better or worse (i'm a software developer, and even i think its not all good!!). TLG are simply following the rest of the world. Schools teach coding, not engineering... i disagree with this as the younger generations are less able to fix stuff. I know thats a generalisation, but broadly speaking the average ability to mend things as simple as a bicycle puncture is laughably poor. Most kids would benefit from playing with technic and grasping the basics of a gearbox.. but it needs a software element too, its the times we live in... i love the mechanics, but i also like the software and i think it needs to be there.

'learning' about software is just as important and mechanics now. Maybe more so unfortunately. 

49 minutes ago, Andman said:

And TLG missed, for whatever reason, the chance to supply proper educational and easy to use stuff with the powered up app.

Valid point... maybe that will come. It should.

[ctx1769]

As technic builder how many rebuilds of the porsche gear have we seen and other mods of other sets have been done. So if the cab proportions are not right i'm sure we will soon see a correction to put the proportions right. 

[Maaboo the Witch]

33 minutes ago, ctx1769 said:

As technic builder how many rebuilds of the porsche gear have we seen and other mods of other sets have been done. So if the cab proportions are not right i'm sure we will soon see a correction to put the proportions right. 

Stamping on it should do the job. 

[suffocation]

10 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

Stamping on it should do the job. 

[JaBaCaDaBra]

12 hours ago, Gimmick said:

I think PU adds a lot to the educational aspect.

Absolutly,
Even better, Spike is also based on PU and all electric parts are compatible.
And that stuff is great education material, I just confronted my granddaughters with it and they're wild about it.
Why there is no servomotor?
You don't need it anymore, the Spike motors (just how I call for now) are all proportional and sensors the same time.

AFAIK this hauler will be steered with that large Spike motor (motor .11 also called)

ALL this stuf can be programmed with the PU- as well as the Spike software and the borders that are still there will vanish over time.
And then.. then you find out that it also can be controlled with uPy...
Okay, gone are those last limitations.
And this will be ported to the PU system as well not to talk about the Train Programm.

6 hours ago, Andman said:

 

It would, if there would be proper documentation for the powered up app. It was @kbalage instead of TLG, who dug deep into the possibilities of this app. And this app, at least for me, is still experimental in regards of the code blocks.

And TLG missed, for whatever reason, the chance to supply proper educational and easy to use stuff with the powered up app.

Thats Spike man...
Spike is Powered Up, nothing else

[Andman]

8 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Thats Spike man...
Spike is Powered Up, nothing else

I don't know Spike and it doesn't matter which name it has. It only matters that the powered up app does not provide any info about the code block. Some of them might be self-explanatory. But others aren't.

But we should go back to the topic. This discussion should be continued in the Control+ thread.

[JaBaCaDaBra]

7 hours ago, Andman said:

I don't know Spike and it doesn't matter which name it has. It only matters that the powered up app does not provide any info about the code block. Some of them might be self-explanatory. But others aren't.

But we should go back to the topic. This discussion should be continued in the Control+ thread.

https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/175574-powered-up-code-block-guide/

[Andman]

 

1 hour ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/175574-powered-up-code-block-guide/

I know this guide and mentioned his work earlier. But I'm talking just about the powered up app. Not everyone knows this forum or @kbalage videos.

[nahpets]

Does anyone think it will have this part in yellow as a new colour?

Technic, Liftarm 1 x 2 Thick with Pin Hole and Axle Hole 60483

[mkbryant]

My first attempt at modeling a set from a single picture of a catalog page:

  

[Rudivdk]

1 hour ago, mkbryant said:

My first attempt at modeling a set from a single picture of a catalog page:

-pics-

Nice! Looking at the top view I find it hard to believe that the current location of the C+ hub was the only available spot... It's BIG, so much space available...

 

[howitzer]

1 minute ago, Rudivdk said:

Nice! Looking at the top view I find it hard to believe that the current location of the C+ hub was the only available spot... It's BIG, so much space available...

 

It might not be an issue of space exactly... the hub has to be accessible for easy removal to change batteries so that limits options on where to put it. Behind the cabin is also a traditional place for battery boxes in trucks and such. Under the hood would be another place with plenty of space though, unless there's a fake engine in there or there's some other limiting factor, like cable length.

[mpj]

1 hour ago, mkbryant said:

My first attempt at modeling a set from a single picture of a catalog page:

Great job! Can you test a rendering with black rims, leaving the internal sprockets in yellow?

[mkbryant]

33 minutes ago, mpj said:

Great job! Can you test a rendering with black rims, leaving the internal sprockets in yellow?

I've already built that configuration but didn't render it for some reason. Will post it later tonight.

[mkbryant]

Yellow wheels (as designed):

Black Wheels:

Tractor Tires (just for fun):

As you can see, the spacing between the rear axles (assuming I have it correct in my model) would have to be increased to accommodate the tractor tires. The fender would have to be moved outward by 12mm but the tractor tire does fit inside, and since the steering for this thing is not at the wheel but at the hinge between front and rear, as long as there isn't interference normally, there wouldn't be any problem with doing that because the tire doesn't move relative to the fender. I imagine it would be a lot of work to do this, but I don't know what the wheel hub and frame structure looks like, perhaps you could simply move the wheels further in to accommodate the tractor tire.

[1gor]

8 hours ago, howitzer said:

It might not be an issue of space exactly... the hub has to be accessible for easy removal to change batteries so that limits options on where to put it. Behind the cabin is also a traditional place for battery boxes in trucks and such. Under the hood would be another place with plenty of space though, unless there's a fake engine in there or there's some other limiting factor, like cable length.

The only other place could really be under hood and cab could be lower in that case, but 42030 also had fake engine so maybe we will have another green fake engine...

[mpj]

@mkbryant thank you!

in my opinion, the second one is perfect 

[mortenm]

47 minutes ago, mpj said:

@mkbryant thank you!

in my opinion, the second one is perfect 

Much better than the original solution!