dhc6twinotter

I disagree with this. This is a Technic. Technic is supposed to be about the technical functions of a build. An entry that has complicated functions and is well constructed is more awesome to me than something that is poorly built but looks good. When I vote, I vote based on technical complexity and how well something is constructed. There is a certain amount of skill that is required to make an entry look good with Technic, and I do account for that when I vote, but technical complexity is far more important to me. If future entries were voted on by only people who mostly frequent the Technic forum rather than Eurobricks wide voting, I think our results would be very different.

If we limited voting to members who primarily post in the Technic forum, I think our results would be very different. Those of us who build with Technic on a regular basis understand the complexity and amount of thought that goes into a Technic MOC or entry. People who don’t build with Technic are more likely to vote based on appearance rather than technical complexity. Personally, I have always voted in favor of complexity and functions rather than appearance, but I tend to think I’m in the minority there.

What is the difference between the two Olive blocks? I think the fact I have to ask that shows it’s not as simple as you make it out to be. I tried to put together a program for a PU backhoe. Creating the button layout was pretty easy, but putting together the code blocks sucked. There was no explanation for what each block was, and I ended up googling a bunch of stuff. I was trying to create flashing lights, a multiple position gearbox, and a way to change the color of the LED on the hub to correspond with the position of the gearbox. None of it worked. I probably could’ve eventually figured it out, but I spend all day in front of a computer at work, and the last thing I want to do is to go home and spend hours on the computer again. That’s easy. The PF example is running all motors off one battery box. The PF example will allow you to add more motors through port stacking. PU won’t let you do that. The PF example will let you add lights. The PU example has no more ports, so can’t do that. The PF example will allow you to use extension cables for larger MOCs. The PU example won’t let you do that. PU extension cables don’t exist. The PF example will let you add as many motors and lights as you want to a battery box (provided the overcurrent protection doesn’t kick in). PU will only allow 4 things plugged in. Nothing more. PF has switches available. PU does not. PF has backwards compatibility with the old 9V stuff, particularly speed controllers. PU does not. PF had a rechargeable battery pack. PU does not (unless you want to count the $250 Spike Prime hub). The only benefit that PU has is the ability to program motors. I have never built a MOC that needed programming though. PF servo motors and the ocasional stepper mechanism has solved all my needs. PU will also allow up to 16 individually controlled items (lights, motors) in a MOC (with four hubs), whereas PF was limited to 8 channels. There are advantages to both, and I do plane on using PU for some things I have in the works, but as a whole, PF was a much better, complete system.

I dunno…I’m a bit skeptical of the accuracy of this. That’s a lot of space sets for one year. It’s a big departure from the typical cars and construction equipment we usually get.

It seems LEGO is thinning out the PU items available for purchase on their site. The LED light, XL motor, and m are no longer listed on their PU page. The Large Hub and medium angular motor are now 20% off. Even a lot of the PU related reviews on TLG website are bad. Only the train stuff seems to be getting decent reviews. It would be neat if TLG offered a RF remote and receiver (either as part of a BB or a separate device). They need to overhaul PU or replace it with something different.

Yes, you’re right. Using BT in the hub and simple distributer would work even better. I would be ok with there being some sort of limitation that only allows one port on each distributer to be powered at a time. That would still allow four motors on a hub to run simultaneously, and that’s good enough for me. I’ve never needed to run more than four motors at once. A hub with eight ports would work well too. I’ve never built a moc with 16 motors. 9 motors is the most I’ve ever used in a MOC, but I did have a MOC planned with 13. Never got around to building it though.

There are three things I would like to see added to PU, and two of these are deal-breakers for me. 1) Extension cables. Got to have these for those mocs that require motors far from hubs. 2) Ability to have at least 8 motors off one hub. Either have a hub with 8 ports, or better yet, have Bluetooth receivers that have 3-4 ports on each that can then plug into one port on the hub. That would allow 12-16 motors to run off each hub. Those are my biggest gripes with PU. There are times where I have to use PF because PU simply won’t fit. 3) The inability to port stack sucks, but if TLG could provide a solution to #2 above, then this wouldn’t be much of an issue. TLG should’ve just made Bluetooth receivers for PF rather than reinvent the system. PF was such a well-rounded system, and PU just lacks some basic necessities. I also don’t want to sit at my desk and learn how to program every moc I build. I want to build something and start controlling it immediately. I spend enough time sitting in front of a computer at work, and I don’t really want to have to program Lego when I get home.

Those new transmission pieces are fantastic!

Neat looking engine! Subtractors are the way to go when building variable pitch props. Nice!

Are those the same tires that were previously on the Batmobile? Not the Unimog tires, but the smaller variant.

I really like this! Lego has done a nice job replicating the real thing, and I’m a sucker for green parts.

3:10 4:6 11:4 10:3 1:2 9:1 Well done everyone! There were some interesting mechanisms displayed in this contest!

Not sure when voting closes, but I’ll vote tonight when I get home from work and have a chance to watch the videos.

That is quite an exceptional alternate model! Well done.

This looks great. I really like all the DBG panels. There has been a major lack of grey panels in general, so this is very welcome.

The rear suspension looks good and is indeed a triangulated 4-link. I don’t know what’s going on with the front axle though. You’d never see a real vehicle with links so close, and there would be some major axle wrap with that design. Lego must be relying on the shocks to keep the axle in place, unless there’s some additional link above the axle. I like the set though, and I’m thinking about getting it.

So, 4WD, fake engine, steering, four pneumatic functions, and a rotating seat. Sounds nice! I’d be curious if it has a motorized compressor or just a hand pump. The price seems a bit steep for what it is, but I’ll reserve final judgement for official reveal. I’m 50/50 right now.

I’ve never seen one of those built out of Lego. I think most people would just prefer to build a regular tow truck. You could build it two different ways; the first method would be to build a DTU with a battery box and motors on it, with the truck having its own motors and battery box. The second method would be to house all the motors and battery box(es) in the chassis and transfer the power to the DTU via gears that mesh together between the chassis and DTU. I think you should have a go at building it! All the fun in Technic is building your own things. All the trial and error and figuring things out is pretty rewarding when it all works. Then you can show all of us your cool creation that you built!

I always have a bunch going. Right now I have the following in the works: -P38 Lightning (currently my main focus) -CAT Pneumatic Road Grader (started years ago) -John Deer Forwarder (started years ago too) -PU JCB Backhoe -Heavy Duty tow truck -Wheeled Excavator And then I have some other tid-bits: -7 rotor hub for a Super Stallion -7 and 9 cylinder radials I haven’t done much building the last few years, but I’ve started a new job and moved to a different state, so hopefully I have more time and motivation to build stuff again.

I’d also like to see a 5x5x2 panel with the same curvature as the large triangle panels. Preferably with no pin holes on the thin side.

This is a really cool contest idea! I’m really looking forward to what ideas people come up with!

The wide one is exactly what I was thinking. The other option would be to have a 3L liftarm with a tow ball socket on the side, facing either the same direction or perpendicular to the pin holes (not sure if that makes sense).

Parts I’d like to see: -12t clutch gear with built in extender (so overall part is 2 studs thick) -4 or 5L links -6.5L shocks with built in tow balls on ends or a female + end to add a tow ball (like the 9.5 shocks) -9L steering rack -Some sort of small tow ball receivers. -Part “[Part 32184] Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Perpendicular 3L with Center Pin Hole” with pin and axle holes swapped. So many times when I could’ve used this. -PU extension wires -PU hub with at least eight ports -PU micro motor

The Skidder would be a good set to add PU. It could be fully RC with six functions and a four position gearbox, but given the price point, i think it’s more likely to have a dumb battery box, motor, and bi-directional gearbox (which I would prefer).

That’s very cool. I didn’t know such a machine existed. Very nicely executed build!