Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nazgarot

  • Birthday 06/20/81

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Bødalen, Buskerud
  • Interests
    Lego (Technic), Martial Arts, Computers, Electronics, RC Vehicles, Mechanics


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

602 profile views
  1. Might I suggest using tubes like those on the 8868 "Air Claw rig to hole the hoses? That would tie them down, and at the same time look very realistic. Apart from that I see very little to improve... Pic of upper structure of the 8868: -ED-
  2. Test Poll

    Same here. -ED-
  3. I use them for spring loaded mechanisms to do a function like: tilting the cab of a truck, moving a function from one state to another - like the foils of an X wing where a two stud lever switches mode in a nice dampened mode, slowing down any motion by removing the spring... The possibility are only limited by your fantasy. -ED-
  4. Beyond Technic

    I do a lot more than "just" Lego/Technic. I have a ton of technical hobbies, from building/modifying electronics, Building/modifying/playing RC, restoring/modifying cars (real cars that is), playing/modding computer games, and of course building Lego Technic and MOCs. I often find myself viewing the Technic line as a bit backwards. There is no real innovation in how the steering angles are set up, how the gearboxes work, etc. But there always comes something that peeks my interest, like the 8275 Bulldozer that introduced PF remote systems, the 8110 Unimog that held so much promise and reintroduced Pneumatics (for me), the 42009 Mobile crane that finally let me have a large scale mobile crane model as I missed the famous 8421 mobile crane, the 42030 front loader that was the first wheeled full RC construction machine; the 42043 Arocs that was an amazing mix of stuff i wanted in a Technic model, and finally the 42056 Porsche. Common for them all is that in the end they disappoint, always falling just short of my hopes an expectations, like: 8275 - not using LA's to move the blade, and generally being a bit simplistic; 8110 - Having a terrible steering solution with completely wrong angles on the front axle and the portal hubs causing the turning point to be way to long from the wheel; 42009 - Not having any kind of suspension and the boom being a bit simple; 42030 - using a servo rather than small LA for steering; 42056 - Flawed gearbox and no real steering angles. The exception being the 42043 which is hands down the best set ever in my opinion. But don't misunderstand me, they are all great sets in their own right, and they are great sets to modify and improve, so they have a great value as inspiration. It's just that they could have been so much more... For me this is not a real problem. I mostly use them as sources for ideas and parts, and I have other hobbies for when I get bored with the limitations. There are however a few things I would like Lego to fix: - Build a super car with real steering angles, 4 WD and new hubs that gives the wheels a realistic turning point. - Make a new buggy and micro motor. - Make a longer and stronger LA, as this is often a limitation. - Make PF pneumatic valves. - Make Remote control with true relative control (analog control) The other things I wanted have gradually become a reality, and that is what makes me always come back to Technic, like; LA, longer pneumatic cylinders, PF motors, Remote control, new track system, etc. And even if I grow real tired with the slow evolution of Technic it is still great for testing concepts that are hard to simulate... To answer the OP: Yes, I feel the Technic platform is stagnating, but they renew it just enough to keep it interesting, so I'll still be here for a while. -ED-
  5. I'll buy those from you in an instant. PM me! I have two at the moment. -ED-
  6. That is a impressive looking model! I love the organic shapes of the bodywork, and the overall look of the model! -ED-
  7. Sorry for quoting myself, but I have some updates. Updates BuWizz No 1: Still no change with this. I haven't heard back from the BuWizz team, and I haven't managed to turn it on with out external power. I'll take it with me to my lab and dismantle it so I can do a test of the battery if I don't hear back from the BuWizz team during the weekend. If anyone have been having similar problems I would be very interested to hear their experiences. I'm guessing it is either a bad battery or a component controlling the battery doesn't work. If it's the battery that should be easy to confirm, but I have no idea where to start looking if it is anything else... Updates BuWizz No 2: I tried to reinstall the App on my mobile, but it still didn't work. With experience from the S-brick app still i the back of my head I borrowed my wifes mobile to test it, and it actually did the firmware upgrade on it, and after trying to connect it through the setup a number of times it finally worked. After this tip I did a reboot of my own phone and tried again. And it worked! No problems connecting, and the module works very well in my test model (MOC thread comming soon). No I'm just crossing my finger that I can make my BuWizz No 1 work as well... -ED-
  8. Hi Tommy B I also think you should solve the problem by yourself, but of course we can help you along the way. To get going you could follow these steps: 1: You need to make a sketch for what you want the design to be. 2: You should make a inventory of the available parts 3: It is important to know what motors you will be using, and how you are intending to power and control them 4: Start building as soon as possible. No plan survives first contact with battle i.e. you will have design ideas that won't work in real life... 5: If you want our help you should start by making a basic design and show us the results of 1 and 2 Best of luck with your project! -ED-
  9. Thanks for the tip. I haven't tried to reboot the phone. I'll try it ASAP! -ED-
  10. PFx Bricks

    For this use I think I would program a Arduino controller by myself. This would be much more compact and be able to use non Lego lights like standard LED of many sizes. For a pure lego build it might be an option, but not one that gives me enough to buy it. After all it's not pure using this... But I did like the software they showcased. -ED-
  11. I find this to be an amazing build. I love the old style "see through" bodywork that really lets you see what happens underneath, while at the same time having a futuristic look. This is among my most favorite supercars. Congrats with a briliant moddel! -ED-
  12. I'm finally home, and I've started to test the BuWizz. I had backed for two in a early bird offering, and got them yesterday as I was leaving for a Conferace. I was super excited to start testing them, but something is not right... One of them I can't turn on unless it is connected to a micro USB charger. First time I tried to connect it to the app it uploaded new firmware, and seems to work ok once the charger is connected. It's even possible to turn it on and of with the charger connected, but it goes dead as soon as the charger is disconnected... A bad battery? The other one turn on ok, appears in the list of the app, but won't connect. I did not get a question on firmware update on this one. So, tow out of tow is faulty. I'm quite disappointed, buy I have high hopes that this is just a software/firmware issue. Hopefully a new version of the app can fix it. Once I've been in contact with the team behind it I'll ask if it is OK to open it and check the battery connection on the first one. I'll keep updating here to so you can see how this turns out... Even though there are some problems I would gladly but another two if they can make them work. This project has such high potential that I can't really see it fail. It is everything the S-brick is not, and it solves the Power Function issue of underpower. I sincerely hope it turns out good! -ED- EDIT: After some more testing I'm convinced the battery is not connected, or is a dud, in the first one. It works as it should when connected to a charger, but it has no power, and powers off when I give the motors load.
  13. I agree with most here that there are no hard official builds now a days as long as you know the techniques to make things run smooth, due to over simplified instructions... The hardest builds I've ever done must have been 8865 and 8868. 8865 was hard do toe the large amount of parts on every step, and me only being 8 years at the time... I still find this hard as you actually have to analyse the build as you go to find where to place all the parts. 8868 also had a lot of parts per instruction, but was also hard due to some unique techniques as well as a bucket load of pneumatic hoses. I still have the original build, and have never tried to rebuild it. I was about 10 when I built it, and I can still remember having my father holding the superstructure of the crane while I fixed a problem. I relied something had gone wrong with the turning mechanism after I was done, and struggled a long time to find out what was going on. It was such a tight fit the all the hoses had to be placed just so in order for it to operate smoothly. I had to modify the length of a couple of the hoses post build because they interrupted the turning mechanism, They where only about a cm to long, and in accordance with the instruction, but needed to be cut and put back in for it to operate smoothly. The more I think of it, the more certain I am that this is the hardest official build I've ever encountered. The 42043 had some of the same challenges, but not nearly as much, and there was a lot more room... The longest time I've ever used on any set was the 10179 UCS Millenium Falcon. This took me 23 hours from start to finish, but it was not particularly hard... -ED-
  14. I just got mine! Unfortunately I got it only seconds before leaving for a two day conference... Well, at least I can download and play around with the app, and do a LDD of a test model... -ED-
  15. I have made a mechanical sequencer that will allow you to use one motor to control two functions in sequence. It can be reversed at any time, and will revers the functions from wherever they are in the sequence. The motor will reverse the sequence from whatever point you reverse the motor. The only challenge is that the mechanism has a fair bit of resistance, taking a good part of the motors power. The thread has suggestions for other more compact designs as well. If you only need the motor to work in one direction on each function there are simple "gravity" latches that will allow the motor to switch between functions by changing directions. If you need a larger total amount of functions than motors, say 7 functions from 3 motors, it is possible using gearboxes and smart combinations of functions, but it requires both space and probably a redesign of all functions to incorporate. Example: A car with one motor for forward reverse, one servo for steering, and two motors for additional functions. By combining steering with a function selector it can have 4 or up to 6 extra functions utilizing the 2 extra motors and adding two extra functions to the forward reverse motor. (This is easier to explay if I draw it, but I don't have time at the moment. If you find it hard to understand I can make a drawing tomorrow). Say we use an example with steering and 4 extra functions on two motors. The forward reverse motor is only used for those functions (recommended if you don't want the model to roll away as the functions are activated, but can be used for functions combined with driving forward/reverse). While steering left the servo is also activating two gear selectors, activating function A (motor 1) and function C (motor 2). Those motors can be used for function A and C as long as the servo is still turned left. The moment the servo is released function A and C is disabled as the selectors are put back to center. When the servo goes right the selector activates function B (motor 1) and D (motor 2). These functions can now be used as long as the servo is kept right... Now, you can use any combination of these solutions to make even more advanced function selectors, but beware of the following: 1. The more selectors you use, the more play the functions get. 2. if you don't use worm gears to lock functions they will not lock when a selector is deselected (center position) 3. If you combine to many functions you are going to run into torque problems. 4. Keep you gearboxes simple and make as few gears of the opposite function (other position of selector) as possible turn when deselected or => Torque problems... 5. The mechanical sequencer takes a lot of torque to operate. To use it for powerful functions like lifting stuff with linear actuators I recommend using a XL motor. 6. Remember, all gearboxes and function selectors are going to need more space than extra motors... A selector roughly requires the same space as a M motor, though it can be easier to integrate. 7. I've always wanted to try using a micro motor for a selector function, but I never can seem to make it work due to it's very low torque. Though if you can make it work it would be a very good solution for a compact selector. Good luck, and don't be shy to present you model here. We might have suggestion on how to improve it... -ED-