Crtlego

An interesting idea indeed! I am just recently escaping my Technic Dark Age after completing my senior year of high school (I spent it all applying to college, 3D-printing walking robots, and making my own 3D-printer) and I'm glad something like this is one of the first things I see! I do have to admit though.. There are definitely hurdles to be overcome. Some sort of version control as mentioned would be nice. I also thing we should favor a slightly medium-large model of a smaller one because despite the extra complexity and time involved, it will make developing compatible modules and frames etc. much easier (more wiggle room and flexibility..). Maybe we should make something fictional! 6-8 wheel truck with outriggers, PF drive and steering, and a flat surface on top on which we could attach modules of different sorts (crane, excavator arm etc.). That way, there are several systems involved for people to work on individually. It would definitely require a lot of people or a few extremely dedicated ones. I may have time to pitch in this summer but I'm not sure. I hope to bring my Technic with me to Carnegie Mellon next year, but I'm not sure if I'll have space. Any AFOL's in Pittsburgh?? We could collab in person Also, Blakbird, I have used SR3D before several times (albeit a while ago) and I loved it. I thought it was much nicer than MCLAD. It's more like LDD, but more powerful and full of neat functionality. It definitely benefits from having a decent computer (I do a lotttttt of CAD on mine so running SR3D was fine for me). Not sure if other programs have received updates in ther recent past though so my opinions/experiences could be out of date!

Thanks for sharing the pictures! Its really interesting to see the insides... I just wish I could help you get it back into working condition

So its not purely Lego.. ..But for my robotics class at my high school (and just out of fun), I put together an RC set that consists of a laser-cut Arduino remote control and a Lego 4-wheeler that has all-wheel drive and all-wheel steering. That's where things start to stray from what most have done with their Lego RC MOC's: it doesn't use Power Functions. Instead, the entire car is driven by four hobby servos--two regular one (180 degree turning) and two continuous (full rotation) ones. And instead of using a Power Functions IR Receiver, I used two XBEE radios. To control everything on both the receiver and the controller end, Arduino Leonardo microcontrollers are used. These are handy little boards that make for a lot cooler projects than anything the NXT can offer.. but don't take my word for it..Here's a video! I also have an article about the construction process of both the controller and receiver on Instructables.com (http://www.instructa...-Control-and-L/) Compared to designing the remote control from scratch and programming everything, the Lego part isn't that hard. The front and rear axles I used (they're identical) had been in development for a while as a part of my effort to develop a more robust and compact drive system (and just happened to be near completion around the time of this project) so the only thing I had to make were the modifications and chassis necessary to house the servos. Despite my use of non-Lego electronics and servos (and the Lego PF wire I had to cut to use the PF battery box), I consider myself a Lego "purist." That being said, it took some tinkering before I got the servos to fit nicely. I was able to do it rather well in the end with the right positioning of the small blue or gray pins, but it does require you to design the chassis around the motors (at least the motors themselves don't take up that much space). The next challenge Lego-wise was attaching the rotating part of the servos to the axle. I did this with the original servo mounting kits and a Lego cog or wheel (as long as you have that hexagonal orientation of holes around an axle-hole any part works). As far as performance goes, I'm glad I experimented with Arduinos and XBEE radios. Its not as convenient a setup as Power Functions, but, besides the great feeling of designing the whole thing myself, it does pay off to be able to customize everything, and to have tons of inputs and outputs (unlike what we are used to).

Hey Tim! I haven't done any speed tests or direct comparisons (yet), but if my recollection of the XL motor is any good, the servos are roughly on par with it. I think the XL might be faster, but they both seem to have the same torque. ...maybe Philo has done some tests?

Strange. I have an Arduino but have often thought about getting into raspberry pi Do you like it? Prices obviously vary a few dollars depending on the exact model of the components and how you purchase them.. but you'll probably end up with something like the following-its not exactly cheap. Arduino .. $25-30 (and to get a two-way thing going you would need two boards..) Standard Hobby Servo .. $10-20 (x4) XBEE .. $20 or $30 each (and you would need two..) XBEE breakout board .. $2-3 (you would also need two..) Wire.. $2-3 Breadboard.. $3-10 The ability to not suffer after cutting a Lego PF wire.. priceless Optional: XBEE to computer board for configuring beyond factory settings..$25 For my remote control the price of the other electronic components (so everything minus the XBEE and Arduino) is at least $50.. Yeah so to get started you're easily paying the equivalent of a new flagship technic set or more.. ..But you can also think of it this way: its better than paying for the NXT! So maybe I'm not the purest purist, but yes, really. I say that because every other time that I build with Lego...I'm building just with Lego and building it with the proper techniques-no bending, stretching, improper spacing etc. With this build, it was not meant to be a Lego.. it was built as a platform for an electronics-based project. Even so, I still use the proper technique. I could have used anything to power the car.. it didn't have to be Lego and I didn't have to cut the PF wire, but using a PF battery box meant I could mount it on the car with Lego pieces only (if I had used something else I probably would have had to use non-Lego straps or adhesives ) Thanks!! And sorry about that flashiness.. My brother told me the same thing and I agreed, but I had already produced most of the video before he did so I didn't go back and change it (due to the timing with the competition, it was my quickest production to date)

Thanks! and I sure did I know!! Maybe I should put a warning in the video.. Thanks! And don't worry, I get the feeling sometimes too.. Thanks David! Yes, the Technic and Arduino combination has been something I've wanted to do for a long time.. but it was not until recently that had the resources and opportunity to try it out. I must say I do like the two together.. I had seen the MINDS-i System and liked its "heavy-duty" approach and its integration of more "standard" electrical components, but my love for Lego prevented me from even looking into it deeply And you're right about the increased range. Since they are RF and don't work on IR like the PF elements do, they have really great range and perform in conditions you wouldn't even consider trying to use IR in. I haven't done rigorous testing (maybe I should--if I do I'll let you know), but I've heard that the XBEE models with external antennas (the one on my remote has an integrated antenna while the one on the car has an external antenna) can perform so well that they can be used on RC planes and quadcopters! As for cost, the radios are a bit more expensive depending on which model you buy. They only vary by $10 or so and the cheapest model is only a little bit more expensive than a PF IR receiver, but since you would need at least two to get started and a couple of other components if you want to attach them to a breadboard or configure different settings through the serial ports on your computer, it easily becomes 2 or 3 times the cost of a PF remote control and recceiver.. Good thing I have these parts on loan from school

I could certainly live with that pricing

Nice job Paul with the designs you presented - I really like where this is going I think you and I are thinking the same thing.. using towball pins to connect the new hub to the old steering arm? Would anybody with the new piece like to play around with this? It should certainly be feasible, but I do not know how it will fair stability-wise when compared with the designs Paul has built that use four liftarms.

So its been a while.. but here's what I've been up to! ...I present to you.. the RiverCleanser! WARNING TO PURISTS : THIS MOC CONTAINS 8 WATER BOTTLES... As you can see, it is quite different.. to say the least Its purpose is to clean trash from the surface of lakes and rivers (hench the name). This is possible thanks to the eight water bottles mounted underneath (not your standard legos pieces I know..) -they allow the model to float above the water with ease. It moves around via the rotation of two paddle wheels mounted on suspended arms on either side of it. The arm mounted above can rotate and raise, and the claw attached to it can also rotate and grab/release (there really should be a better word for this) - all this allows it to collect water bottles, crunched up paper, and other trash of this sort from bodies of water. After doing so, it can drop the trash off into the unfolding tray in the front - it can then continue to collect more trash before returning to shore... More details are available on my site http://www.kayrus.co...s/rivercleanser .. but feel free to ask any questions ..but in the meantime, I've produced a few videos of it. The first is a short trailer of it themed to the latest James Bond film Skyfall. Specifically, it was made to the likes of the "Skyfall Teaser Trailer" The second is an overview and demonstration of all the RiverCleanser's functions.. The last is a video of it picking up some things indoors (if you didn't notice from the picture, there is a stand I built specifically to hold the robot indoors.. its not built to rest on the bottles except for when nits in the water). Lastly, there are some 250ish additional pictures of it on flickr (soon to be on Brickshelf) Looking forward to any and all comments you guys have

@Boxerlego: Thanks! Attaching the bottles was probably one of the hardest parts. There was a lot of reinforcing that I had to do to make sure it wouldn't just collapse on the bottles due to its massive weight. And it certainly is a joy to use in the water.. but that feeling comes more from its not sinking than anything else @DLuders: Cuyahoga would certainly be a good place to start -that river's a mess!! ..although I'm not sure it would be messy enough for the RiverCleanser Perhaps it is better suited to the waters of Legoland..

Congratulations!! You deserve it! I think its a really nice and sporty design. Its looks like great in the snow too.. but I don't think Lego will be using that in any promotions

Thanks Alasdair! I too was surprised the first time I set this thing off in my bathtub! In fact, I originally did so with less and smaller bottles.. and to make matters worse, the bracing for the bottles was also not as reinforced at that time as it is in the final version.. You can imagine how traumatizing this must have been to put so many pricey electronic pieces on the line like that. Thankfully, it floats remarkably well, and the positioning of the bottles and their "angling" has made it so that it is extremely difficult to flip over. When its actually on the water though, it is much higher than I would have liked (by an inch or two -any more and the XL motor and M motor for the tray and winch would be submerged or at risk) -the way to get around this would have been to weigh the bottles down with water or sand (or legos!) but I didn't exactly want to sink it or make it any heavier (its already a workout to transport this thing!)

This is an excellent idea and well executed as well! I especially like how they always manage to get back on track after bumping into each other..

So I just decided to make a single thread where I can share all my Technic MOC’s with all of you. I’m going to have a running list of my MOC’s but I’ll start it someother time. Let’s start with this picture below –it shows all my entries to the Lego Technic Challenge during 2010 and 2011. Yeah.. I know. Its kind of late, but I've been writing articles about each entry and producing videos as well (All which are now completed and are linked to below next to each entry). 12 Wheeler: (June 2010)-This small truck was built to have the most wheels.. it only has 12 +one spare in the front. It also has rear-wheel drive (XL) that drives the fake V4 up front. The steering is powered by an M motor. Full Article Brickshelf Tractor: (April 2010)-Built for the farming challenge, it has four RC functions: arm lift,bucket tilt, rear-wheel drive, and steering. It also has lights in the front. Full Article Brickshelf Futuristic Jet: (February 2010) -it has tilt-able wings and adjustable seats. Looks kind of cool? Full Article Brickshelf Scraper: (August2011) -This little scraper has four RC functions: all-wheel drive,"steering" ,bucket lowering, and adjustable bucket cover. Full Article Brickshelf Offroad Lifting Crane: (August2010) -It has numerous manual functions but nothing electronically powered. Theentire truck can be lifted by four pneumatic cylinders. Full Article Brickshelf Flickr Tow Truck/ Extreme 8258 (Entered June 2011, Top 10) -This is my biggest creation ever. It weighs over 12 pounds and has 14 RC functions. There is a separate thread for this which is located here.I've also written a lengthy article on my site which explains every last detail behind its design and functions. Full Article (I encourage all of you to read it.. its actually quite nice)..As I mentioned in its thread, I've made a video which took forever to produce (below). There is also a with sped-up footage of the monster being taken apart in reverse. Pictures can be found on Brickshelf and FlickrTow Truck Video

A completed project that simply hasn't been published yet.. I couldn't hold it in any longer.

This is one very interesting discussion. I stopped buying sets for parts a long time ago.. the high number of basic parts (pins, connectors, axles etc) versus that of the more unique/specialty ones simply didn't make the purchase of new sets worthwhile. I have since wanted to get the 9398, 8110 (to name a few) for the unique parts that they provided but the cost was simply to high. Granted, purchasing each of the pieces included in these sets individually is considerably higher than the set itself, but that still doesn't lower its price.. so I've been keeping my purchases on the low. A number of good points and arguments have been made already so here's my two cents. We, as a Technic Community, are, I would think, relatively small compared to the number of 12 and below kids who are Lego's "focus group." Although a number of us take the art of Technic much more seriously (or should I say professionally?), we are in the relative few. Our hobby involves acquiring a huge variety of parts in, at times, large numbers. The demand for certain parts is constantly shifting while for others it is gradually declining. Some of us weigh the price of a certain part above or need for that part and make do without it and others are able to do the opposite. Currently, Lego sells the majority of its products through their online shop and physical stores (their own Lego store or at a retailer like, in the case of us Americans, Toys'r'us, Target, or Walmart etc). In either case, they sell whole sets (with the exception of electronic parts like Power Functions and Mindstorms that can be sold individually online). A set is their main medium for a number of reasons. In nearly every case minus Technic, a set is a story. The builder of that set follows instructions until he builds what is on the box and uses the functions that have been incorporated into the set by Lego. Depending on the theme, sets may be designed to be built with other sets, further embracing the "set" philosophy. Sets are attractive to parents because they can see what will be built (knowing that instructions will be used to do so) and don't have to worry about the design or inventive process behind it -nor do they worry about not having parts or what parts or colors they will need. As much as my mentality and personal preferences go against this, there is nothing wrong with the concept of a set. It is ingenious. It does, however, point out the difference in uses that Lego has. On one side, it is seen as the building blocks of a pre-designed set and, on the other, it is seen as a medium through which our own creativity is shown and with which we can build whatever our hearts and hands desire - both parts of the spectrum are seen in the Technic community but here, a particular emphasis is put on the word MOC -my own creation. Sets are still of importance to MOCers in that they result in the development of new pieces that have not been seen before (either in their entirety, or simply in their color), but a certain convenience is permitted by tools like Bricklink and Ebay that allow us to buy one, two, or a hundred of a particular part that we need. Personally, I would be satisfied with a new Pick a Brick system that had an EXTREMELY LARGE RANGE of available parts (sorry for caps, the emphasis on LARGE RANGE was meant for the eyes of any TLG officials reading this). Bricklink has this range, but not enough supply to meet shifts in demand. Also, Bricklink has a number of retired parts that are becoming (if they haven't already) increasingly rare or expensive. Lego Direct is not in the spotlight, but is still an important tool -it is, besides LUG, the only "real" means of buying Technic parts directly from Lego (the current Pick A Brick is not even up for consideration in this matter). Lego Direct, however, has its own limits (prices higher than bricklink at times, pieces that are no longer in production, limited shipping, part quantity limits, telephone-based with subsequent restrictions on ordering hours..). Although satisfying our needs may not be the most profitable course of action for Lego, it should certainly be one of their most important.. They would have no problem producing extra parts and hosting a new site to sell them to the whole Lego community. Granted, we can expect them to sell old parts that have long since been outdated (however sad this may be). If Lego is concerned that the "per part" purchase model will be unpopular, maybe they should put it ON THE LEGO SHOP.. where everybody goes to buy Legos! Maybe the problem is that we are so few and we are spread so far apart. I live in the U.S. and like Blakbird said earlier, Technic is hardly known around here. At the stores, it is in the back, rarely on display, and, with the exception of the sub1000 part sets, hard to find at certain retailers. Visiting conventions like Brickfair, it is easy to see how small the American Technic community really is (I'm sorry to say that I missed my chance at display this past summer) and it is sad to see the general misconceptions and confusion revolving our precious theme.. there is no excuse for calling Technic pieces Bionicles.. I hope that when I am older, I will have the chance to visit the Technic community (go to a convention or two and possibly a Trial Truck competition - I wish such a thing existed in the U.S.) because I have read and seen how much more popular it is there.. LUGBULK may work there but I fear it would be hard to implement here (also, the large quantity of parts is somewhat unappealing imo). There's my two cents

This is an interesting twist to the Lego Technic Competitions of the past. I love the idea of having the winning MOC go into production but, as was previously discussed, there are a number of issues with making that happen. And I'm not sure what to think about this happening so soon after the release of the 9398.. no complaints but certainly strange by Lego standards.

I wish more of our problems could be resolved with as much grace as this one. I also wish I hadn't been out of the country during Brickfair.. second year in a row that I missed a chance to see Paul's awesome moc's

Love it! Looks amazing with the flex-red on the black chassis and your setup for the four RC motors and two receivers works really well! I've been eager to try this but I'm currently one motor short.. Great work!

This is amazing.. there are no other words to describe it. Well done. I was wondering the same thing..

Thanks DLuders! I didn't see this thread until now.. Let's hope that the price goes down considerably and soon.. Even the prices on Bricklink are high -I don't expect them to be low but still.. That's interesting about the M-motor price difference. I can't think of any reasons for that.

mahjqa.. The videos, the tumblers, the bat.. everything. ITS AMAZING!! I love all your mocs but this is just fantastic! The tumbler looks amazing and works really well too! I've built a big one myself so I kind have an idea of the hurdles you had to pass to make yours work I love both your old and new one and how you rebuilt it to use the new motors.. and that you built it in two different colors The bat too is amazing. It looks just like the one in the movie! And the little rig you built to fly it - just awesome! The swinging motion is just epic and it looks really nice when you edited the rig out of the video! The camera rig is a marvel in itself. I've built a number of rigs for my iPhone and various Canons but this one is definitely unique. And thanks for taking the time to document your project so thoroughly and make instructions.. If the project I'm working on didn't require as many 3L pins and motors as it does I would probably try building your tumbler and sit it next to mine And your policy regarding the distribution of instruction manuals is solid.

Do you think they are already available via Lego Direct? When I called them a month or two ago they said they would not be available until March. Obviously this date may have changed..

This truck looks absolutely amazing!! Beautiful detailing! And it does indeed seem very strong! Can't wait for the video.

This is very interesting to see the specifications that Lego has just provided (why now?) and to compare it with existing technical data. I've downloaded the existing specs for further reading but I'm curious to know why none were provided for the M-motor? Could they be phasing out the M-motor and replacing it with the L-motor, (presumably next March when the L-motor supposedly becomes available from Lego.com)? It is the only existing Power Functions motor to have studs so that does give mounting options that are not available for the L-motor (even with its additional holes).. I would like to see it stay but if they do get rid of it, I hope they will bring the L-motor's price down to that of the M-motors or something close to it.