Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About dmaclego

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
    Star Wars

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Attic, armchair


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

2059 profile views
  1. Certainly. But writing about those who are not targeted by LEGO, I meant - maybe not clearly enough - "adult MOC-building customers", not adults in general. Those of us who actually build advanced MOCs tend to criticize the direction of Technic series (and some others, for that matter). Those who collect sets are generally satisfied and, as you mentioned, they gladly buy Titanics and Bugattis. That's perfectly fine. All I'm saying is that LEGO is a company that offers toys for kids and, occasionally, for those who have fond memories from their own childhood (plus lots of spare cash and attention span large enough to enable them to stack up some 3 thousand pieces or more). However, it is not a company catering to a relatively small group of home-grown designers who - consciously or not - play with bricks to surpass or transcend whatever they see on shelves of the LEGO store. I consider myself one of those. I keep trying to build more realistic, more functional, more complicated models but I do not expect LEGO to accept the challenge and choose the same direction :). It wouldn't be good for business so it will never happen. And I'm OK with it. I just buy selected parts that I need for my projects and treat myself (usually around Christmas) with only one big set that I find particularly pleasing from aesthetic point of view. For me, this is the way, as Mando would say ;). And one more thing: what we buy as LEGO sets should not be confused with what LEGO designers are capable of. I actually have a great deal of respect and sympathy for them. Just imagine you've created a fantastic model and then you hear from your boss: "Man, we don't produce these and these elements this year. Replace them with something else." Or: "No, this year you can use them only in white or dark pink". Or: "Sorry, pal, but according to marketing department your model is 10 dollars over the budget. Forget the printed parts and shave off at least one feature." What I'm trying to say is that while we may be worried about Technic's future, it will be shaped by pure business factors.
  2. Bravo! And if there is anything to add to this spot-on diagnosis, it's this: LEGO products have never been and will never be addressed to adult MOC-building customers. By design, some of the sets appeal directly to children and some to their parents ('Ho, ho, ho, my boy will be over the moon if I get him that kick-megablocks Ferrari for Christmas!') but MOC-building AFOLs are NOT the target. Deal with it, my friends. By definition, our opinions about new Technic sets are not relevant because we are too deep into the subject, have way too much building experience and waaaaaay too high expectations. And annual financial reports indicate that this is exactly as it should be for the owners of the giga-company called LEGO.
  3. My 5 cents about 'vomit' colors and new parts: 1) In my models created for CaDA I only use brightly colored parts deep inside and always with the same commentary: 'You may use ANY color instead of red/yellow/blue etc.; these parts will not be visible'. I do this mostly for CaDA's convenience (they may have certain colors in production, maybe even in stock; besides, some colors are cheaper in production than others). But my thinking was that if they must produce, say, dark green plates 1x2 for the armor of my tank, by default they will use them in dark green inside as well, because it makes sense (logistically). But that didn't happen :) . Honestly, though, you would hate me even more if the most dense, System-built areas of my models were monochromatic ;). 2) Until recently I had no idea that pins 3L will be available in black so you get blue ones in my bulldozer. I guess communication between designers and CaDA, which is really good, could be further improved. 3) I totally agree that liftarms or axles with stop in all conceivable lengths would be a mistake. Yes, they would make things easier, but, in my humble opinion, that is not the point of this hobby. As Orson Welles once said, 'The absence of limitations is the enemy of art'. But on the other hand, there are also parts that open up immense creative possibilities and for some reasons have never been produced by LEGO or were abandoned years ago. Wedge tiles 2x3 and 2x4, towball sockets with pin, flipflop liftarms, old style hinge plates... You really appreciate them once you try to build small, complicated AND realistic structures. If I get to continue my relation with CaDA, I will not stop suggesting them new parts that support creativity (and boy, I do have some ideas!). And I'm not the only one, as far as I know :). Expect the unexpected! 4) About that legendary cost of new molds. Yes, they are expensive, but we should also consider two important factors: a) they are not nearly as expensive in China as they are in Europe and b) CaDA is not (yet ;)) a global superpower on bricks market. This means they do not have to produce new elements in absurd quantities (thus don't need huge number of molds for each new element) - and LEGO does. That's why as long as CaDA does not go the 'Jack Stone way' and keeps producing new parts that support creativity, things should be just fine. 5) Ultimately, though, it is all in buyers' hands so here is my plea to those of you who so far choose to be faithful to LEGO brand (and I used to be one of you): there is no such thing as positive monopoly. CaDA seems to be an honest competitor and who knows - maybe if you give them a chance, it will also motivate LEGO to improve. (Unless you think LEGO has already reached perfection but that's not the case, in my opinion ;). P.S. No, I don't get royalties for each CaDA set sold. Nor for writing in this thread :) .
  4. Yeah, I really tried to convince CaDA these small actuators should be yellow or black but without success. On the other hand, I'm glad they were bold with L and XL actuators. Anyway, thanks for your kind opinion.
  5. I've been using some 10 battery RC units from CaDA since 2020 without any dangerous incidents. Have charged them repeatedly and succesfully with USB 2.0 port in my dekstop computer and a range of phone chargers form LG, Samsung, Huawei and Realme. I guess I'm lucky. The only complication is that some of these units (older ones?) seem to connect with only one or two remote controllers from my "collection", while others can be paired with any controller.
  6. Yes, some two weeks ago. And contract for this model was signed very early 2021 so it has nothing to do with LEGO Cat. But, admittedly, it is mostly yellow ;) . Yes, they are. CaDA micromotors are super-strong compared to old 9V LEGO micromotors (and much faster). Paired with linear actuators, they provide plenty of power. I hope so, too :). So far the quality of CaDA bricks has been more than satisfactory. The prototype I received was fine but I haven't built the production sets they sent me yet, so cannot vouch for those. But stay tuned - my "designer review" should be done this weekend. And regarding "design errors" - please, think of this model as a MOC, not a good ol' LEGO set. CaDA is much more liberal about non-standard building techniques - and I love it. On the other hand, the long gone basic solutions - like using Technic bricks (and not mostly liftarms) or the almost forgotten hinge plates (offering so much more freedom than click-hinges) - are also welcome, which I admire. Generally, I used pretty much every technique I know to achieve the LOOK, while not losing the functions. Yes, they are. And they are all black :). Also, I'm glad the four standard actuators used for the ripper now come in yellow. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to convince CaDA to produce small actuators and micromotors in yellow or black.
  7. Then perhaps I should warn the potential buyers of my new CaDA set that I built it hoping - as usual - to merge Technic with Model Team style, which means parts of it are not as sturdy as typical Technic builds. But hopefully better looking than typical Technic builds ;).
  8. Well, that's not the case with the tank model I designed. CaDA micromotors are stronger and faster than LEGO micromotors but I don't think they can propel a vehicle to a speed that would endanger the drivetrain. Or that the vehicle could be heavy enough to damage anything in the mechanism.
  9. dmaclego

    The Tribute to The Razor Crest - Released!

    And what a tribute it is! Excellent work, Jarek. As always. Some really crazy angles (I have no idea which one you consider incorrect, I didn't notice), neat details, tan instead of yellow - and it's all spot on. I'm really, really digging it. Congratulations!
  10. Absolutely awesome rendition of a.... Well, let's stop right here - it is irrelevant if the original Twilight was beautiful or not so much ;) . Matter of taste, I guess. But what you did here is just great. Proportions, tons of details, colors (well, technically gray is not a color but still ;) ) - it is all spot on. Congratulations!
  11. dmaclego

    [MOC] Project: Endor

    First of all - thank you, I'm glad you like my Endor. As for making my AT-AT walk, I will stick to my opinion: it is not possible (yet) :) . I have given it a lot of thought over the years and while I know very well how to build a mechanism that would emulate quite faithfully the walk of the "real" AT-AT, the actual problem with model of this size and weight are legs, which are only 2 stud thick (and, honestly, should be even thinner). They almost crumble when the model is standing still and would never survive walking. Making them stronger with Technic bricks or liftarms would be an obvious solution but I refuse to compromise the looks of my model. Thus, it won't neither walk nor run in forseeable future :) . And now more bad news ;) : - I do not own any of the LEGO AT-AT sets, so I cannot help you match the scale. Also, as far as I know, fan-made AT-AT's available on the market (as sets of instructions) are too big for the diorama you linked. My knowledge about these is rather limited, though (having my own AT-AT, I wasn't really looking for alternatives. And it's exactly the same with AT-ST. However, generally speaking, AT-ST's issued by LEGO are minifig scale, so they would be too big for your diorama. - The diorama you linked is much, much smaller than mine so I'm pretty sure the technique I used for the landing pad will be useless for you. My landing pad is 4 studs thick and I think you should look for something closer to 2 studs. But maybe my solution will inspire you to find your own, so here it goes. Please, take a look at this picture: Most of the surface, both top and bottom, consists of 6x5 panels, which are light and reasonably rigid. Vertically, they are connected with assortment of plates (4 long) and Technic bricks 1x4 - all in grey. Horizontally, the Technic bricks are pinned together with longer Technic bricks (1x16 and similar), which is a nightmare to assemble but gives you a fairly light and rigid structure. The problem is, you cannot make the landing pad any thinner with this method so if you really wish to have it smooth on both sides, maybe you should use horizontally stacked bricks with studs on both sides, connect them with large plates on both sides and then use tiles to connect the plates. This would result with landing pad a bit over 2 stud thick - and a host of completely new problems ;) . But you won't know if it's worth your effort until you try. - My tree branches consist of black plates 1x6, 1x8 and 1x10 connected with toothed hinge plates, which gives them nice, arched shape. These are covered with a kind of "lace" made mostly of dark green leaves 6x5 and green leaves 4x3. Mind you, this technique, although effective, requires large amounts of leaves. I used over 5,500 altogether. - About the baseplate - as you may have noticed, my landing platform pillars are rooted in massive hills and I strongly advise you to go the same route. It essentially does not matter which baseplates you use but if you have two 48x48 baseplates, start with these and use as many bricks as you can to strengthen them. You want your "land" as rigid and as well connected with the pillars (possibly with Technic bricks) as possible. Whatever you choose to do, I wish you good luck and a lot of patience! dmac
  12. dmaclego

    Brick Vault UCS Shuttle Tydirium

    Yes, of course: motorized wings and some of the lights. What I meant (and wrote) was that now, when instructions for this great model are available, someone will inevitably add the rest of the functions: motorized landing gear, motorized landing gear flaps, motorized ramp and blinking lights on the wingtips (and belly).
  13. dmaclego

    Brick Vault UCS Shuttle Tydirium

    Yes, it is. Thank you. But as I said, the big shuttle presented in this topic offers huge opportunities for modification, due to its size. It is only a matter of time :) .
  14. dmaclego

    Brick Vault UCS Shuttle Tydirium

    Thank you. I think this big one is a mighty fine model but I wonder why the creators did not include mechanized landing gear, landing gear flaps and ramp. I did it in my model so obviously it's possible within even bigger frame. The lights are a whole another story; installing them properly on the wingtips requires some serious tinkering. So let the countdown begin: who will be the first to buy instructions, build the model and then heavily modify it with extra motors & lights? :)
  15. dmaclego

    10212 UCS Imperial Shuttle Mod

    M motor may not be enough. This is a single, seriously geared down L motor lifting both wings: With M motor it will be way, way slower (if possible at all). L motor has roughly 50% more torque at similar rpm and is only 1 stud longer.