Eurobricks Counts
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Xewyz2001

  • Rank
    Used to be clickbait
  • Birthday 03/20/2001

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Alicante, Spain
  • Interests
    cooking, rollerblading


  • Country
    Cosmic Space
  • Special Tags 1

Recent Profile Visitors

2718 profile views
  1. 22: 10 1: 6 20: 4 3: 3 13: 2 16: 1
  2. Good Day! Since first seeing Technic figures in a catalog back in 2005, I really wondered whether there was a female version as well. Unfortunately , as we know , there are none. This problem is solve-able either modifying an original lego part (which will decrease the number of those in existance) or making your own. As a purist almost , I would choose the second version. I was surprised that no one has done this before (there is a broken link to a japanese website where someone done that in 2000's, but no pictures to be found anywhere), I took my free time to make a quick mock-up. First step was to get the torso and head into my 3D program - Autodesk 123D - from LDraw. That was done using LDView (place part in x=0, y=0, z=0 and export the file containing it through LDView as an .stl). Next was the chest, which was done using a few spheres, lofted surfaces and tubes (I tried not to exagerrate the size too much, just for it to be slightly notice-able). Luckily there were mannequin's side & top-down shots for inspiration. Next I exported this hair piece and scaled it up to approximate size & placement. Please note that I'm a noob at 3D modelling, and my "art side" is non-existent (for me it would be easier to draw a mechanical piece as a blueprint rather than a human being), so I would love to hear any suggestions and ideas. I do eventually plan to upload the finished model to Shapeways, but I can send it via e-mail. Question: Do you think the "reduced"? waist (as the one printed on minifigs) is necessary? Images:
  3. Xewyz2001

    Dominator TRS

    Looks interesting so far, I remember you proposed that kind of gearbox long ago somewhere on EB, nice to see it finally coming to life!
  4. Hmmm. Difficult to answer. 1. For small MOCs one may want to go with a combined version (BuWizz style) 2. For larger MOCs one may want to have several combine-able components (current PF style) , so you dant need to worry about having several batteries that you probably won't need and which will add weight. 3. For smartphone fanatics, BT / BLE is a cool way to control your creation, offering customise-able controls with buttons and sliders. 4. Downside of BT / BLE is the dependance on your hardware (smartphone). All companies and even their phones have different receivers so you are never assured 100% compatibility. 5. The above mentioned hardware has a touch-screen , which sincerely is a crappy thing due to there being no feedback at all. (Although solvable by using separate wireless controllers, we will multiply by 2 the amount of lag and connectivity problems). 6. 2.4Ghz. Extremely extensive & popular way of RC control. Easily connetctable between controllers & receivers, with thousands of controllers available to suit your taste & style, offering real feedback which helps you control better. Having in mind all written above here are my 2 cents: - Separate receiver and battery-box , as long as both are small-sized and ARE rechargeable (while being used in sets) ; - 2.4Ghz way of control ( as long as it is compatible with 3rd party controllers which is not that sci-fi , since current PF protocol is open source) - Somewhat smaller PF components (micro-motor or maybe smaller servo)
  5. Xewyz2001

    Spring loaded Lego PF switch?

    Isn't a hockey spring a much smaller solution? part x928cx1
  6. Xewyz2001

    [TC13]Roadster 2

    Interesting drivetrain, although not fan of the bodywork, was expecting something like your Junebug from the title
  7. Xewyz2001

    42069 - C MODEL

    Amazing alternative model, the quantity of functions is overwhelming! bravo.
  8. 5. Retro-futuristic Racecar 3 pull-back motors on rear axle, 1 on front Discussion topic
  9. Good day. This wasn't really supposed to be a retro car, but while playing with different shapes out of flex-axles, the folllowing car was made. Statistics: -power by 3 pull-back motors on rear and 1 on front -max speed of 1'77 m/s (~6'37 km/h) Video & photos: More photos in my Flickr album here
  10. I wouldn't get so hyped about BT or most probably BLE receivers , not all devices are the same, specially considering OS requirements and not every smartphone being supported 2.4 GHz on the other hand , seems like a wise option - you always know that the controller provided will work no matter what (maybe even custom ones would be possible having in mind their currently open PF protocol)
  11. Would've preferred red, but great design!
  12. Xewyz2001

    [MOC] Mitsubishi Pajero

    Very interesting drivetrain approach, hyped for the 4x4 MOC
  13. Very beautiful model so far. The choice of old panels really gives it character making it stand out from boring plain models. PS: I know it's late , but older (3 pin-holes) version of the rims could've been used to avoid reversing rear wheels (44772 has axle holes from both sides).
  14. Xewyz2001

    The use of black pieces

    At least for me the problem is actually the non-presence of black parts in modern sets - which leads me to use LBG in chassis (which combines well with frames and old-colored gears (light gray) ) making the chassis uniformly-colored as in a real vehicle. I'd still prefer having a black chassis, since I don't understand the point of remarking with various colors the driveshafts and mechanisms, and LBG-colored chassis stands out too much. I really miss old TLG selling strategy Probably because people children of recommended age on box were getting them confused with 5x11 H-frames