Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gimmick

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
  • Which LEGO set did you recently purchase or build?


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Think positiv: If someone steals your MOC -> not allowed for sale because of TLG patent
  2. We need licenses like opensource for hardware. But not going to happen... x)
  3. So the date is 2019 2018 and nothing happend yet? Since Cada has problems with clone brands, too, I would try to 'license' that and if someone clones a Cada-Model use that as starting point. x) Edit: Old gearbox from 1996 was patented, too - as mentioned in the "new" document. I do not think, that this was "clearly attempted at frightening potential competitors" - in 1996.
  4. I was wondering why this part (and other specialized parts) is not protected, but other things are. Well this answered my question... And apart from that, it was never really clear to me when a solution could be patented. Rounding a brick is one thing, thinking about a switching solution is another - maybe. I know this helps against the "bad copycats" [Cada not included] and it is directed against all competitors [Cada included], but I'm not a fan of this behavior. And I know that they invent a lot of new useful parts but that's one reason why I accept higher prices and I would never buy pure clone-brands [Cada not included]. I do not think, that this will affect MOCs. And I do not agree with his "fair play" argument, since nothing happend yet (status of the patent is unclear) and he said multiple times, that he accepts, that TLG invented it ;) Like always, everyone(!) thinks "fair play = I can do what I want and if not -> that's not fair" x) But I agree: If anyone likes the supercars -> go for it now, great models :).
  5. Gimmick

    [Poll] Do you like LEGO as a company?

    Mixed thoughts - tendency: good It's hard for me to "like a company" anyway. Some things they do are questionable for me, a lot of things they do are very good. The people working there seem to be very nice and while I do not agree with every descision (products, marketing,...) I see no reason to suspect some 'intentional evilness' x)
  6. No it doesn't add much (but a bit), as it doesn't add much to the other models. :) Except 42055 I think. I could for sure construct some "arguments" for the size, like "V12 + mechanics + scale + blablabla" :D But in the end it's just: It does some things that others don't - probably because there was no space left... and the weight of each property is basically always subjective and therefore I do not see much value in a discussion about the decision it self - I'm not the taste-police. There are multiple totaly different but great dozer models available - I will not rank them with the claim of absolute objectivity. For me the main bummer of the 42131 are the not simultaneously useable blade functions. -> If I can change that, but keep the fake-motor and gearbox for the other functions -> perfect set for me :D (with the right discount). Maybe a motor will fit right at the front above the fake motor and a second hub between the two driving motors, but maybe not, we will see... And I think I would replace the ripper with an attachable heavy counterweight, the ripper doesn't ripp anything anyway. x) @howitzer If you want to keep all the gears: Sounds very challenging. If not: There are a lot smaller models with more motorized functions. My argument against the 42082 was only based on the 'play features', not how they were created ^^.
  7. @kbalage pricing is a total different story. Even for the size and partcount I still think it's too expensive. But I also think, that you are overthinking the design by itself in terms of its size and purpose. Higher crane, bigger shovel, larger dump bed or blade, bigger construction in general.... it always causes problems, it's just 'more' and it never adds something new just because of its size :). And it's of course not efficient in terms of functions/size. Never was, never will be. But if a reason for size is neccessary: It's 1:17.5 ;-)
  8. @kbalage I think it was more like: The Liebherr was full RC -> so this won't. Just for the sake of being different. Would not be the first time. Big crane, big excavator, big bulldozer and now you complain about the size? - I have a bit of the impression that I missed the moment when big machines are no longer cool. But this cannot be, because that would be a contradiction in terms :D
  9. @gyenesvi The extended drive ring makes the connection more flexible. The hauler has some problems with axle bending in this area, too. If there is enough space (double the length) in a MOC it's maybe better to split the gearbox in two parts with two wave selectors. Kind of interesting problem and solution, shows the limit of plastics I guess. @kbalage Nice. But how is it possible not to be a fan of huge construction machines? ;)
  10. @kbalage I tried some manual gears from other sets, too. They bascially all stuck if there is some load on the system, it's just not recognizeable that much if you switch by hand. Are you realy sure about the stuck gears? I switched the direction for testing and since there was a delay between the motor and gear rotation I assumed, that the red gear is not stuck but the driving ring is. And the wave selector turns a bit to give the driving ring some space to move. Maybe it's both x) But the conclusion is clear: We need new and better driving rings/connectors :D
  11. @kbalage With "backwards" we obviously meant the opposite direction After a bit of testing it seems like the clamping happens between the white driving ring connector and the driving ring and not between the gear and the driving ring as I thought. That's unfortunate because you cannot apply an opposite force on the ring. But I'm still a bit skeptical if the wiggle realy helps. But since my first assumption was wrong anyway... :D Pushing the bed against the actuator limit works perfectly fine for simulation :D
  12. @kbalage Thx =) I might be wrong, but it looks like in the first test the driving motor turns in the same direction as you turned it with the last command. I do not think that this would help to release any tension that has been build up :D The shaking myabe does. Looks funny either way x) I'm still almost ~some% sure that such effort is not neccessary and it only needs a very small backwards rotation of the drive motor to disengage the driving ring enough for a smooth gear switch. But on the other hand: You have the model and a PU Profile -> Fullpower in the actuator limit -> release power -> switch ^^. I will try this with the hauler later, iirc the motor was not strong enough to make the actuators 'slip'.
  13. @kbalage The Liebherr lifts itself up in the calibration :D For me, they thought a bit too much about scratches on the floor, but atleast that's something, that can be changed easily, even if someone wants to keep using C+. Someone posted a video about driving the real CAT under your review. The virtual 360° topview reminded me of the programming interface in the C+ App :D
  14. Current delta and range of motion for each function should be stored in the C+ App, respectively in a file - like in the volvo. That's one of the disadvantages of the PU-App compared to C+. Since you have no permanent but dynamic variable in PU, you have to define a 'parking position' or calibrate each time if you want to keep track of the real position. Edit: Filename of the Volvo is: Hauler_stats.json
  15. Maybe someone mixed the ports in the code xD Instead of: turn the drive motor a bit back and turn the selector at the same time. It does: turn the selector a bit back and turn it .. at the same time :D