howitzer

Eurobricks Dukes
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2147

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by howitzer

  1. Posted

    1 hour ago, Lego Tom said:

    I'm not sure which would be better - to move the tracks out further, add another set to make them wider or maybe both? IIRC (too lazy to go look) the tracks on the D11 are wider so using those may help as well.

    Yeah, they are 7L as opposed to 5L in the Liebherr. But they are also made of softer material which would bend under load and thus not provide the sideways stability desired from wider tracks.

  2. Posted

    Just now, Jim said:

    Like @Ngoc Nguyen said, we will leave that for another contest.

    But maybe we can turn it into a generic "9 wide build" contest, so cars, helicopters, bikes etc can be built too. Although bikes can become big, even with a 9 wide limit. So maybe trucks and cars.

    If you include handlebars in the limit, they won't. On the other hand, for aircraft the limit is really, really tight and anything above polybag size that would probably be too limiting.

    I'd stick to cars and trucks too. Perhaps there's even possibility for me to enter in such a small contest.

  3. Posted

    16 hours ago, msk6003 said:

    Remember "mindstorm" is also part of title. I asked mindstorm/C+ contest many times but all rejected.

    Mindstorms and Control+ has been allowed in many contests though and I'm sure will be in the future too, so nothing's preventing you from including them in your build. It's true that there has been no Mindstorms-focused contest, but I'm not sure if that's a great contest idea anyway, considering the lack of participation in some of the contests where programmable electronics would've fitted perfectly, like the transformation vehicle contest. There just doesn't seem to be too many builders here who are interested in those and also interested in contests.

    It's also noteworthy that Mindstorms was only recently merged to this forum, while it is my understanding that Model Team has been there since the beginning.

  4. Posted

    On 12/11/2023 at 1:53 AM, pow said:

    P.S.: Ideas are starting to pop up: How about a "scale down and model-teamify" contest, for example? In which, as the name suggests, we not only scale down, but also build Model Team versions from old Technic sets.

    Could be a fun contest, at least in the sense of being something novel and something to challenge Technic builders who don't normally build in System and also a good reminder that this forum has also "Model Team and Scale Modeling" in its title. There's a downside though: many Technic builders might not have a good enough collection of suitable parts to make a good entry for this kind of contest. I personally have some parts but as I don't really build in System, I don't have a good sense of the parts I possess, so entering would be difficult.

  5. Posted

    On 3/20/2024 at 9:50 AM, gyenesvi said:

    Yeah, I can accept that, but my point was that by the same argument we could have gotten a recolor of that pin-axle connector in yellow in the Jeep, or the same happened with some parts not getting recolored to orange in the Raptor..

    I understand that a new part is different from the case of a recolor, and it's more complicated to introduce. My point was that they are game changing really basic useful parts at least in the technic world (though such structural parts are the ones that can actually be useful in other themes as well).

    I think this kind of thinking is what's problematic, and short sighted. Because define 'badly enough'. Designers can always say, well, we can work around it in some awkward way. We can come up with suboptimal solutions. We can leave out that complicated mechanism. I see plenty of examples for these, like the incorrect suspension / steering geometries of recent cars (Zetros, Raptor, Ford GT) instead of adding a long missed part for a correct one (I mean, majority of technic models are cars, it would make sense to make more efficient parts for them). This kind of thinking is short sighted and unsystematic. Instead of creating a system of parts (that would be the essence of lego in my opinion), it leads to a pretty random set of parts that cover specific needs. And with that they are not only frustrating builders (they can afford not really caring about them), but they are also making their own life more difficult. Instead of releasing obviously missing parts, they are coming out with sets containing workarounds and suboptimal solutions again and again. Only when reviews get bad enough do they consider fixing the situation. When I first looked at the technic parts palette with a grown-up engineering mind, I was pretty surprised and disappointed how unsystematic it is and how much suboptimal workarounds it requires to build with. Sure, one can get used to it over time, but..

    That's a good point, this kind of more isolated status and different parts palette of Technic theme might account for seemingly less new parts compared to the rest of the themes.

    Indeed, these last few years are more promising, I do agree. Just wish more focus was put on the missing basics, than the completely new concepts. For example that U-shaped 2x3 beam that we are getting this year seems pretty specific, I literally don't know what I'd use that for as I never found myself needing a similar part, and I could have imagined a more basic part to have more priority. Unfortunately, I suspect some big holes will never be filled. We will probably never get a 4L beam (that's kind of a unicorn of technic parts), we will always have to work around that, even though in quite a few cases it's impossible. And by the same argument I guess we'll never get a 4L or 3L flip-flop beam (as something similar already exists), we can only hope to eventually get a 5L, as hopefully that's missing badly enough. And we'll probably also never get a proper 2x3 L shaped beam, because we recently got a 2x3 curved beam, that tries to be both an L shape and a panel piece at the same time, but now it's not great for either of the tasks (some part of it is often in the way), but now it's kind of blocking the true need for both.

    Unfortunately, what I see is that often when a new concept is introduced in a year, it is used in many sets of that year (which is good). So for example, I think if we'd be getting a 5L flip-flop beam this year, it would have already appeared in the January / March waves. Sure we still get some specific surprise novelties later this year, but I already ruled out some obvious / awaited ones in my mind.

    The non-recolour of the axle with pinhole part for Wrangler is indeed inexcusable.

    I don't really disagree with you on any of your points, it's just that this is the world we live in and TLG does what it does. I believe the set of flipflop beams will eventually be completed (same as normal liftarms) but other missing parts you mention seem to be more elusive. My pet peeve is the lack of pin-axle connector, the same as pin with pinhole but axlehole in place of pinhole.

  6. Posted

    6 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

    Obviously, we don't believe that some themes would have unlimited budget or get countless new molds. But it does feel like Technic gets a smaller frame or uses it in a weird way.

    And we are not talking about color vomit here, I agree that it helps to distinguish parts on the inside - rather talking about long missing _basic_, quite reusable parts for _basic_ colors, while other themes seem to get specialized parts in exotic colors (like that one in the dragon). Something is counterintuitive about that.

    That's not an exotic colour for a dragon. It's only exotic if you only think it as a pneumatic part, but obviously it has also many other uses which sometimes require recolouring, that's a perfectly normal thing to do.

    Quote

    It seems like the opposite - Technic seems rather display minded nowadays. Many models are not very functional for their size, and many of the new parts / recolors are panels to improve the looks of models, and new structural / functional parts are rare. Even recolors of parts to an exotic color for the sake of a single set in technic are somewhat annoying, because it creates a new color that can hardly be used, as only a handful of parts exist (like olive green and bright light orange, and now the new reddish orange, though I can imagine a new upcoming larger set using that color). At the same time, look how slow is the unrolling of the flip-flop beams in many lengths. They have proven very useful already, used in many models, yet only exist in 3 lengths after 2-3 years. That's very counterintuitive; a new concept that changes the whole game and makes fundamentally new structures possible, yet they don't make full use of it (actually, the non-existing short lengths could be even more game changers for dense builds).

    It's true that Technic is somewhat display-oriented nowdays, considering the endlessly repeated car sets with minimal functionality and almost no innovation. I also agree with you on the issue of new exotic colours which makes the recoloured parts almost useless, which is why I avoid buying those sets - I long considered buying the Land Rover but in the end decided against it due to the stupid colours.

    The flipflop beams don't really compare here because each requires new mould and reconfiguration of the whole production line (part counters, bagging etc.) so they are requested by designers only when truly needed. This does leave moc makers at frustrating position as there's a sort of a promise of this new very useful part but it's unknown when we'll get a delivery on that promise. I'm sure more lengths will be released eventually, but only as the designers need those badly enough. One problem with Technic parts is that they are generally not that useful in other themes (many are but mostly those which have been in production for a long, long time) so the Technic designers probably have to justify the need for new part more strongly than designers for other themes. Getting a recolour of a Technic (or whatever) part is much easier if it happens to fit in a System build than getting an entirely new part. Also, despite this we've been getting quite a bit of new Technic parts lately with tons of new panels and also new gears and gearbox parts and the small fake engine parts in the latest. What other theme gets as many new moulds designed every year for their specific needs?

  7. Posted

    2 minutes ago, ukbajadave said:

    I vaguely remember a youtube video where someone had lots of universal joints out of alignment to demonstrate the cumulative effect. I only have 4 of the new bigger "CV" so probably too few to be  noticeable, but if someone else has lots how about an experiment?

    This maybe?

    I think the CV joints are actually constant velocity, it's the third part in the middle which makes an U-joint not constant velocity.

  9. Posted

    2 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

    Hi everyone, this is Planets from RacingBrick. :laugh:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abAfPpRejDM

    Great review as always, and how nice of him to compliment our reverse engineers here in the forum for their work!

    The set is as expected from the photos and analysis provided here, so I didn't learn much, but it's nice to have our thoughts confirmed. I'm sort of bummed about the complete lack of aesthetic touches but as @kbalage points out, it's great to see all the gears at work. I wonder if it would be possible to achieve some sort of finished look while not hiding the gears too much...

  11. Posted

    14 hours ago, N00b1nat0r said:

    In regards to the colours and also the size, I did see one on one video and eventually came across this on the Liebherr site Fourth Liebherr LR 13000 crawler crane handed over | Liebherr where when looking at the images you can see the crane is yellow, and the boom ends are red just the same as the Lego version.

    Funny that some people and even some reviewers criticized the set for its "unrealistic" colours and configuration, but what do you know, those are entirely realistic and the critics were just unaware of how things are in real life.

    Anyway, I share a lot of your sentiments about this set, and I'm similarly happy about it even if it was really expensive purchase. Obviously it's a compromise of many factors but overall I feel it turned out in the end much better than I initially thought.

  15. Posted

    Very nice! Maybe this will give some inspiration to others in attempts to build something less usual in Technic.

    I've also contemplated on building a lathe, albeit with a bit more ambition. In my idea there would be multiple speed gearbox and a bore through the machine (so you could turn long stock) and main bearing made with Technic metal balls. Perhaps even automatic feed through lead screw. But as with many other ideas, that has to wait until such a time where my schedule is not so cramped...

  16. Posted

    24 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

    Then that concern should be true for the Spike hub itself as well, and yet it exists..

    In principle, yes, but considering how it's marketed, that's less of a concern. Considering it's intended for robotic and programmable applications, most of the time it's not connected to several powerful motors being used simultaneously, but rather it's going to have many low-power sensors connected which leaves plenty of power to motors. I guess it's possible that it also has more robust electronics as it's much more expensive than a C+ hub, though I have no testing data of this.

  17. Posted

    2 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

    I've heard about that EU requirement too! It's actually sounds like one of the few practically useful ones :)

    And a rechargeable hub would be amazing! About repurposing the Spike hubs, I don't think they would do that for technic use, because Spike hubs are just too smart (and I guess expensive) for that. Furthermore, I hope they realize that two ports are not enough for anything useful, while the 6-port hub is just way too big. So I guess the most probable ones are a rechargeable insert for the Technic hub, or a redesigned version of it, because once they move away from AA cells, the shape/size can be optimized for LiPo cells. 6  ports and a 9x5 base size would be amazing, but not sure if that's possible.

    Spike hub isn't that much bigger than C+ hub or PF battery box and it has 6 ports so size-wise I don't see a reason not to do 6 port hub. I'd be more concerned about people connecting 6 XL motors to it and then attempting to run them with maximum load - either it would cut power instantly or it would require pretty robust electronics and I don't think TLG is willing to have either.

  19. Posted

    Very impressive! Most of the time large Lego builds tend to be just basic bricks stacked on top of each other in a way that creates sculpted looks, but yours is something different as it actually takes advantage of the possibilities of Lego as it is today instead of being something that could have been built in the 60's. I can only imagine the hours and effort spent on designing and building this model, especially the tyres are really cool.

  20. Posted

    1 hour ago, Jundis said:

    But the 24h challenge is really hard to keep "fair", as most of us with family can hardly take a whole day off. Maybe a contest with a duration of 3 days or even a week would be better suited for a first test...?

    That's why it's a challenge and not a contest. No prizes, just show-off of creativity. Most people don't work on weekends so I guess that would be the best time for it. And of course you don't need to spend the whole 24h on it, you can build only 8 hours or whatever if you feel like it or can't spare the whole 24h but could spare less.

  21. Posted

    21 minutes ago, Lixander said:

    It sounds interesting, but I didn`t quite understand: we would have 24 hours to come up with a design or to actually build something?

    I believe the idea is to take 24 hours of time to design and build something from start to finish.

    The different timezones etc. of course pose a challenge but it's an interesting idea, and I'd like to participate if possible. But taking 24 hours off from normal life is a tough deal...

  22. Posted

    13 hours ago, The Southern Brickfan said:

    I bought this set at Christmas, and enjoyed the build etc, and especially the stability of the trusses used to build the boom, jib etc. But Has anyone noticed that the caterpillar track links seem to be different to the ones we got back in the days of BWE (42055)? They seem slightly softer, like the ones for the Cat buldozer. they sound differerent to older tracks linkages, especially if you have them on say a, wooden table, though their weight is almost exactly the same per piece.

    The glossy finish is not there either. Is this due to a change in the ingredients of the plastic they are made from?

    Thanks

     

    Brian

    Yep, there's definitely a change in the part, the finish is glossier in the old ones, and they are slightly stiffer too.

  24. Posted

    1 hour ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

    There's a pattern for flagship cranes: 42009 in 2013, 42082 in 2018, and 42146 in 2023. Even though 42146 is a crawler crane, it's still a crane nonetheless. Therefore we can expect no flagship crane for the next 4-5 years.

    Do you have some sort of official source for this pattern? Because just having three crane sets with 5 year intervals makes for a pretty poor pattern, and TLG isn't under any obligation to follow such patterns anyway.

    Flagship scale mobile crane would be nice though. Hopefully with three-section boom with synchronized hook travel and at least 6 axles.

  25. Posted

    14 hours ago, mdemerchant said:

    They are certainly going to make the build much quicker which is good if you are the sort that really gets bothered by repetitive building.  I think the resulting structure is probably also a fair bit stronger than most built up 7x7 lattice booms, mainly because they have cross bracing in both directions where most people build those booms with two flat lattices just connected by axles so they are flimsy in one axis.  I don't have the parts though so can't say for sure but in looking at how they are assembled they must be stronger.

    I think the main limitation is they only work well for a 7x7 cross section.  If that's what you need for your crane, great, but if you are interested in making something closer to scale most cranes don't have booms with square cross sections and don't use a fixed cross section for boom, jib and derrick.  So I don't think the parts are as flexible in their application as they ideally would have been.

    I don't think it's possible to break a truss made of new parts without breaking the parts themselves, and at that point we're talking about forces far exceeding those that any Lego is expected to withstand. When used as intended they connect really securely and are indeed strong in both directions.

    It's true that other cross sections than 7x7 pose challenges, though I think strong 7x9 would also be easy using flipflop beams along with the truss parts. I think variable cross section boom is going to be difficult no matter what your technique, as are triangular cross sections and so on, but those are concessions that we're going to have to make with Lego and not diecast scale models.