Eurobricks Counts
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by howitzer

  1. 11 minutes ago, Johnny1360 said:

    Lol, great as that moc is, I think such an unwieldy behemoth, would be an easy pass for me. Hopefully the LEGO version won't require it's own storage shed.


    Not to mention that it would be exceedingly boring as a building experience, with the endless liftarm connecting to make the booms. There's no way an official Lego set would look like that.

  2. 8 hours ago, Johnny1360 said:

    Not that I am wowed by the little we have seen so far but for the first time I actually feel like buying and building one of these big cars, lol. No rhyme or reason either, I have always passed over picking up any of them before, just not interested.

    I have kinda the same feelings. The previous supercars were mostly really boring, but this one at least looks good and comes in a useful colour, unlike the two previous ones. But I'm really hoping for some novel functionality. I had 8865 as a kid and it feels that no supercar after that one has had that much more to show in terms of technical features so hopefully they made at least a little bit of effort to push forward with this one.

  3. 3 hours ago, doug72 said:

    The gearing to move the rack seems over complicated. A 1L worm does the job plus driven from the fixed end using  two  2L axle connectors and a12T DBG gear


    Yeah, but worm gear requires so much of knob-turning that I prefer something that's faster to operate. But I will think about it.

    13 minutes ago, Jundis said:

    Is it the chassis of the 42121, just turned upside down? :D

    Not exactly, just the tracks. They are mainly placeholders to stabilize the thing as I needed quickly something to keep the arm upright and to give a feeling of size and I happened to have assembled 42121 at and so I just took the tracks from it. I will make better ones if I have time.

  4. I thought I wouldn't have time to participate, but looks like I got some free time on my hands now that there's still couple of weeks left before the contest deadline. So I wanted to participate, and to build something that's a sort of unusual, but easy enough to make in the short time that's left.

    3D-printing is all the rage now, and even buildings can be printed. There are many kinds of machinery for that, but to fit the contest rules I chose a type that moves on tracks and extends a printer arm for spraying the concrete in place. Something along these lines: constructions3d-printer-1024x594.jpg

    I'm not going to attempt replicating the machine pictured above, but something similar with the same basic functionality.

    Here's what I've built so far: 



    I intend to add at least outriggers and a knob for rotating the turntable. Not sure what else I can fit in, we'll see.

  5. 20 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

    Unless you count the truck. That's the most flagshippy thing from that year.

    It'd definitely be a shame if the LR13000 were to be delayed or even not released; I was looking forward to seeing what it did, if nothing else.

    Yeah, I haven't bought anything in flagship-scale in a very long time and the LR13000 definitely got my attention. Real shame if gets cancelled.

  6. I thought I wouldn't be participating, but it appears that I suddenly have some free time after all in the coming couple of weeks, so am I correct to assume that the contest won't be closed before the end of the month?

    Another question: does it have to be a model of a vehicle that moves around on its own power, or could it be something that is hauled to the site by trucks (not included in the model) and is assembled there to perform its job and then disassembled and hauled away?

  7. 8 hours ago, Lyichir said:

    Don't know if there's much interest among Technic fans for this but the new Ninjago Ultra Dragon (71774) has the gear rack from the UCS AT-AT (part 78442) in either tan or dark tan (not 100% sure which). I think that set and the Optimus Prime set also feature a new joint connector for the hips—specifically, a part that adapts a System brick (possibly with Technic hole?) to the AT-AT-style ratchet joint used for the hips. If nothing else it might have use as a detail on MOCs—I'm eager to see reviews to see what that part looks like in isolation.

    That's interesting indeed, if for no other reason, then that it makes the part more easily available and common, thus cheaper.

  8. 13 hours ago, Brickthus said:

    Yes, 42052 had just over 1000 pieces and 42113 just over 1600 pieces.  A 2000-piece helicopter is around the maximum sensible size for a kit.

    It is a "pick-up and swoosh" model so it would have the new version of the switched battery unit, not needing any remote control.  Hence the price should be around £200, not £400.

    Hence I believe the listing is a typo, copying the Ferrari figures.

    A more-sophisticated helicopter idea in the £400 price bracket could use more motors in servo mode for the pitch controls but that would not be a pick-up model.  A LEGO Technic kit model is most unlikely to ever fly under its own power, given the state-of-the-art.

    It is a shame that we might be restricted to the bright colours for aircraft in order to avoid military connotations, but I hope it will be a kit I'd like to buy in multiple.


    I have actually seen a flight-capable quadcopter with fuselage, propellers and motors made of Lego parts, with third-party battery, on-board microcontroller and remote controller. I think that one demonstrates nicely what's theoretically possible, but it would indeed require much better and more lightweight electronics from TLG if such a thing were ever considered for an official set.

  9. 1 minute ago, Gray Gear said:

    I think it would be smart to use the new gears everywhere where the bevel is not needed. I mean, whats the point to keep using the bevel version? They cause additional friction and have to benefits in return. But somehow I feel like this isn't going to happen.

    I could also be that this will happen eventually but not immediately, as I imagine TLG has a huge number of the beveled gears stored and they would want to reduce that stash before committing fully to the replacement of them with the new spur gears. But we shall see.

  10. 2 hours ago, thekoRngear said:

    That also sounded absurd for the BMW bike right? But Lego have a thing for making enormous stuffs. Or, I could say Lego have the notoriority to increase parts count with limited functions and appealing the masses moar :tongue:

    There's a limit of how large they can be before becoming too unwieldy. BMW obviously didn't go over that limit, and is actually quite manageable despite it being much larger than any motorcycle before it. A helicopter with tripled or quadrupled part-count would mean something seriously dense in construction (what?) or much larger fuselage than before, and that would mean also making new rotor blades, which in turn would mean that it's almost impossible to play with or display the set properly in a normal home.

    But the main reason for my doubt is the identical price and part count as the Ferrari.

  11. 5 minutes ago, thekoRngear said:

    Guys, do you think Lego going to incorporate the new 12t and 20t gears in the upcoming Supercar? Maybe this is really a stupidity to ask but we just saw them with the 42140 few months back and a video showing their capacities uploaded just a few weeks ago. I guess for the gearbox where there are 20t/12t double bevel gear pair replacing them with this new gears pair can reduce friction (I dunno to what extent) when in highest gear(s). Yes, a display oriented set, bigger limited play-ability values but then again JB70 and the gang will start tinkering it again and that's where the fun begins IMO.

    I see no reason for TLG to introduce those new gears unless there was a plan to use them in all places where the beveled counterparts were previously used only as a spur gear. They are probably slightly less expensive to produce (simpler mould) along with the reduced friction.

  12. 8 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

    That's an interesting question, don't know, the Mindstorms app's programming interface seemed much more well designed. Wonder if it's possible to program simple servo steering, or a gearbox though. Have you tried something like that? The PU app has some predefined blocks, for example for servo steering.

    Also, I have read somewhere that the Mindstorms app may have some lag when used for remote control, because the whole system was mainly designed for programs running on the hub itself, not for fast communication (though I don't remember if this was in relation to a physical remote controller, or for phone control as well).

    No, I haven't tried those, would be interesting to do some testing. Also the possible lag aspect may be significant and warrants investigation. Too bad I don't have time for that at the moment :(

  13. 10 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

    While I believe that the hardware is fully compatible, I think the bottleneck is the software (which is sad). I bought the Mindstorms set with big hopes for that hub (and also for the motors and other sensors), but when I tried (a while ago) I was disappointed that Mindstorms hub was not supported by the Powered Up app. I learned that they use different Bluetooth technology: the Technic Hub uses Bluetooth Low Energy, while the Mindstorms hub uses Classic Bluetooth, so they require quite different software to connect. I am not sure if there was any progress in merging them (or if ever will be). I have only seen one technic MOC with the Mindstorms hub running with PU motors, but that was also controlled with the Mindstroms app (I guess for the same reason). But it may be worth giving the Mindstorms app another try (at the time my phone was not able to run it), and also as far as I remember it should be possible to connect a physical controller to it. I'd be interested if anybody has experience with that!

    Well, I've done a bit of experimenting with this stuff and never used the PU app for anything, just the Mindstorms app, and all the motors work fine. Does the PU app offer some advantage over Mindstorms app or is there any reason why the latter couldn't be used except maybe the phone problem you mentioned?

  14. 22 minutes ago, The_Tinkerer said:

    I have several questions regarding PoweredUP/Control+ and Mindstorms, and as the Mindstorms help topic went down with the ship, I think I'll start a new one. Do all PoweredUP and Control+ motors work with the Mindstorms hubs, and vice versa? Further, do people use the 51515/45678 Mindstorms hub instead of the PoweredUP/Control+ hubs for the size and additional outputs? I realize the Mindstorms hubs are more expensive but they're still comparable to a Buwizz with additional ports and programmability. 

    Yes, the PU motors work fully with 51515 hub. And yeah, 51515 hub is also perfectly usable in place of the PU/C+ hub. I really don't see much reason to use the PU hub if you have/can afford the 51515 hub.

  15. 33 minutes ago, astyanax said:

    In my collection I have a bunch of transparent bent liftarms:


    Sometimes they're nice for making extreme head- or taillights on cars. Although the last one (in trans-neon green) I've never used... But still cool to have :pir-grin:

    Yeah, the trans-clear, trans-orange and trans-red I can see being useful, but the other ones feel a bit odd from Technic point of view...

  16. 4 hours ago, HectorMB said:

    Well, I am thinking to jump in the Mindstorms with the 51515 set. But now I found that not any retailer (even TLG itself) have any delivery date. Does someone knows about the reason of this?

    No idea about the reason for its absence, but it's not uncommon to have a set be unavailable for a while and then return. Each Mindstorms iteration has a very long shelf-life (7 years or so), so it should return to shelves sooner or later. Could be that there's a relation to the global shortage of microchips or something like that.

    There is a bunch of them available in Bricklink, you should check those out. The price may be higher than with a normal retailer though.

  17. 48 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

    I would definitely do this with PU instead of PF, that's exactly what it was designed for due to the position sensors in the motors. For example the controls in the Liebherr do this exactly, and you don't even need to turn it back on when you want to reverse. I haven't ever tried programming that in the PU app though, wonder if it's possible..

    Or are you after the fun and complexities of solving it all mechanically?

    Unless there's some complication I missed, it's really easy to do with PU. And yeah, definitely much easier than with PF and mechanical linkages to turn the switches.