amorti

Brunojj1's mind-opener - red supercar - free instructions now available for static version

Recommended Posts

wow ok I just noticed that the paddles move if you use the remote control for shifting,

I wonder if we can do the reverse too? use the paddles to shift?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SNIPE said:

wow ok I just noticed that the paddles move if you use the remote control for shifting,

I wonder if we can do the reverse too? use the paddles to shift?

You'd have to overcome the servo motor in between... :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and Gents, let's face it:

In next few years CaDa motors and steering will become only way to build MOCs made trough PF era.
Power Functions motors will be retired soon, and C+ motors are not a replacement for them, because they are bulkier and weaker. Of course buying used parts will be still possible, but I think that having 2 motors in price
of one will be tempting.
Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SNIPE said:

wow ok I just noticed that the paddles move if you use the remote control for shifting,

I wonder if we can do the reverse too? use the paddles to shift?

It doesn’t. You can move the paddles but nothing changes. 
 

Jeroen Ottens’ “PF Tribute” does have an electronic paddle shift mechanism, that works with a PF switch and a servo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M_longer said:

 C+ motors are not a replacement for them, because they are bulkier and weaker. 


Thoughts?

I'm not sure they are? There is a comparison of 42099 and 9398, and if you gear them for similar speeds the new one can get up more.

The motors are bulkier, but they're also more usefully shaped, so more typically used as a structural element of the model.

My problem with c+ is the hubs are expensive. As Lego has patented the connectors, there will presumably also be no compatible parts any time soon. No buwizz, no sbrick, only c+ hubs.

At least brickcontroller2 can already give you a physical control for your toys. Using a phone to control models is no fun.

Edited by amorti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2020 at 11:35 AM, astyanax said:

You'd have to overcome the servo motor in between... :wink:

Yes, this can be done with a mechanical OR gate:

Input A (left) will go to the paddles.

Input B (left) will go to the shifter motor,

and output (right) will go to the gearbox.

Everything can rotate in either direction however the two inputs do not drive each other which means the shifter motor will not move the paddles,

and the paddles will not move the servo motor.

Only trouble is these differentials are bulky.
OR-gate.png

If anyone knows of a smaller way to do this please PM me.

Edited by SNIPE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, M_longer said:

Ladies and Gents, let's face it:

In next few years CaDa motors and steering will become only way to build MOCs made trough PF era.
Power Functions motors will be retired soon, and C+ motors are not a replacement for them, because they are bulkier and weaker. Of course buying used parts will be still possible, but I think that having 2 motors in price
of one will be tempting.
Thoughts?

 

19 hours ago, amorti said:

I'm not sure they are? There is a comparison of 42099 and 9398, and if you gear them for similar speeds the new one can get up more.

The motors are bulkier, but they're also more usefully shaped, so more typically used as a structural element of the model.

My problem with c+ is the hubs are expensive. As Lego has patented the connectors, there will presumably also be no compatible parts any time soon. No buwizz, no sbrick, only c+ hubs.

At least brickcontroller2 can already give you a physical control for your toys. Using a phone to control models is no fun.

This has been extensively discussed in the Control+ topic. There are upsides and downsides to C+ and it's not a black-and-white issue.

Those who want to stick with PF style electronics can of course continue with CaDa parts, but I suspect in a few years majority of motorized MOCs will be using the new system, especially when we get a proper release of the dumb hub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, amorti said:

and if you gear them for similar speeds the new one can get up more.

119745105_611686972803219_22882860454842

PF XL motor is almost twice as powerfull as C+ one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M_longer said:

PF XL motor is almost twice as powerfull as C+ one.

Nope.

To make it a fair comparison you'd have to gear the pf XL to get 50% more speed, so it would be closer to 10n.cm than 15n.cm.

If you're talking about power, you need to compare the mechanical power number, not the torque number.

Even so, the numbers do tell that the pf XL motors were ≈12% stronger (napkin maths)

That graphic makes me seriously wonder why bother with the larger powered up XL motors if they don't give more power than L motors.

Edited by amorti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, amorti said:

That graphic makes me seriously wonder why bother with the larger powered up XL motors if they don't give more power than L motors.

Same here!

Makes little sense to have L and XL motors if they only differ in size and not in other characteristics!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't yet found anyone willing to share a scan of the instructions, or even a part list...

But that's no longer necessary because I obtained a full virtual model, divided in building steps and submodels and all... sweet! :sweet:

I know what I'll be doing this weekend... adding those 3rd and 4th PF L motors and 2x BuWizz! :grin:

Seems like I already got all the parts in my inventory, perhaps only need to color-swap a few internal connectors. Had already acquired the red arched panels for LoxLego's Ferrari F12, the rest I can manage with "genuine" parts.

800x470.jpg

It's such a beauty, even in virtual reality... bravo Bruno!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, astyanax said:

But that's no longer necessary because I obtained a full virtual model, divided in building steps and submodels and all... sweet!

Wow, that looks spectacular. I'm not sure you're allowed to say where you got the virtual model from but where did you get the virtual model from?! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2020 at 7:28 PM, brunojj1 said:

The exhaust pipes used by @Polo-Freak are these: Engine, Smooth Large, 1 x 2 Thin Top Plate in chrome silver. These parts with the 2x2 plate wouldn´t fit.

I humbly beg to differ. :sweet: Part 4868b does fit. Rotated 47 degrees there are no collisions, as verified virtually. There's even room to fit a 2x2 black tile to hide the gray studs, as shown.

1280x794.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump, any luck to find the instructions and parts list for us that willing to build it in Lego form?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vded said:

Bump, any luck to find the instructions and parts list for us that willing to build it in Lego form?

Since the author wrote he isn't permitted to share it, maybe best stop asking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Theo van Vroenhoven said:

I asked astyanax for the digital model but no response until now...

We can have a discussion about that, but I'd prefer to do it here, in the open, where @brunojj1 can also chime in. I greatly value his contribution to this community as a content creator, and love to see more in the future, not to stab him in the back.

So here's an honest and well-intentioned question: is there any room for having something like an open "Pimp up my Pista" project, much like those spearheaded by @jb70 for the flagship Technic sets from TLG?

Of course I don't know (and won't know) the details of the contract with CaDA -- if he gets a percentage from sales, then yes it could be a stab in the back. On the other hand, perhaps not so many people here would have enough Lego parts in their collection already to make it worth choosing BrickLink over CaDA. I don't know, but perhaps we can discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uploading the instructions publicly, modified or original, is just as bad as what Lepin was doing imo. If you have them, great, but keep them to yourselves. If or when CaDa uploads them themselves, I wouldn’t have a problem with sharing them. 

You can buy the model for $240 from Cada or around $140 directly from China, you’ll have a parts list at the end of book 6 and the instructions to build the model. Or, you can try your luck and ask CaDa themselves if they want to send you the PDF files. 

Edited by LvdH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@astyanax I'd love to see a "pimp my pista" thread, but I think @LvdH makes a more valid point.

While Lego instructions are immediately in the public domain, CaDA instructions are not. You wouldn't make a free instruction set to modify @T Lego's blue supercar which has paid for instructions on rebrickable, or @eric trax's Claas which is the same, the only difference here is that (for whatever reason), @brunojj1's instructions aren't on rebrickable, but they're still copyrighted, paid-for material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said, @Didumos69's Greyhound is also a paid-for MOC, but, having added descriptions and pictures to the MOC thread with various mods, I don't feel I've infringed on (C).

So maybe photographing the section in question before and after a mod doesn't infringe (C)? There's definitely not enough to build the whole model from those kind of shots, so seems like a case of "fair use"?

IDK... I'm not a (C) lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, amorti said:

@astyanax I'd love to see a "pimp my pista" thread, but I think @LvdH makes a more valid point.

While Lego instructions are immediately in the public domain, CaDA instructions are not. You wouldn't make a free instruction set to modify @T Lego's blue supercar which has paid for instructions on rebrickable, or @eric trax's Claas which is the same, the only difference here is that (for whatever reason), @brunojj1's instructions aren't on rebrickable, but they're still copyrighted, paid-for material.

Just a bit of technicality, but Lego instructions aren't public domain, in the sense that as a legal term "public domain" means IP that's freely usable by anyone for any purpose. They are still subject to full copyright owned by TLG and even if TLG shares them freely, you aren't allowed create derivative works of the instructions for example, like certain Chinese companies have illegitimately done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, amorti said:

@astyanax I'd love to see a "pimp my pista" thread, but I think @LvdH makes a more valid point.

While Lego instructions are immediately in the public domain, CaDA instructions are not. You wouldn't make a free instruction set to modify @T Lego's blue supercar which has paid for instructions on rebrickable, or @eric trax's Claas which is the same, the only difference here is that (for whatever reason), @brunojj1's instructions aren't on rebrickable, but they're still copyrighted, paid-for material.

Just a bit of technicality, but Lego instructions aren't public domain, in the sense that as a legal term "public domain" means IP that's freely usable by anyone for any purpose. They are still subject to full copyright owned by TLG and even if TLG shares them freely, you aren't allowed create derivative works of the instructions for example, like certain Chinese companies have illegitimately done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.