amorti

Eurobricks Counts
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1171

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by amorti

  2. Posted

    1 hour ago, Another Brick in the World said:

    Very nice model! it seems to perform very well even at full throttle. The axles look very interesting too, and very sturdy. Would a 3D file or building instructions be possible?

    The last guy who made PDF instructions for @Didumos69 spent weeks of evenings doing them, then never got a reply.

    Diederik - what's up with that? I'll ask here since you ignored my PM's for months.

  6. Posted · Edited by amorti

    Just realised the 1:5 motorcycle tires are too large at 139mm diameter.

    The correct tyre for the BMW is a 200/55-17, which is about 652mm across. Divide that by five and it would be 130.4mm.

    The front tire is a 120/70-17 represented by 132mm in Lego but should be @120.

    No wonder the wheels look too big on my RC bike with correct wheelbase to scale of something like an R1 1415mm/5 = 283mm.

    They are...

  13. Posted

    1 hour ago, head1004 said:

    Hi, T-LEGO I'm one of the people who wants to perfectly recreate your LaFerrari work with Lego parts. I was wondering if you have any plans to apply and improve the new suspension mounted on Lego 42143 to your LaFerrari work as well.

    Models progress as new parts become available.

    Designers look forwards to their next model.

    If you want to use new parts on older models nobody is stopping you modding it, but asking the designer to do it for you is strange.

  15. Posted · Edited by amorti

    1 hour ago, NoEXIST said:

    cost in relation to the prices of bearings and plastic is not unattainably low

    Not unattainable no, but if you consider not only the price of a bearing and printer filament as the home project guy would, but also cost/depreciation of the printer, R&D time, effort in packaging and shipping even if there's an additional shipping fee, blablabla... well, it's doubtful that anyone's going to get rich at 5€ per hub.

    Anyway - back on topic. I am excited for your project/product, especially the RC-novice variant, and would like to be near the front of that queue.

    I wonder if the scope is wide enough to do a kickstarter? Or if you'd be interested in such anyway.

  16. Posted

    2 hours ago, Lixander said:

    It would be nice if the hubs to have metal bearings.

      

    Not to take over the thread, but bearing hubs already exist, and they're very affordable.

    https://tf-engineering.at/wheelhub/

    1 hour ago, NoEXIST said:

    The experience I was talking about is that not every potential customer will be experienced with rc world. As we've talked about hub with only esc's inside is for more experienced users. 

    I can't count myself among this number.

    So for me I'd definitely prefer a built-in receiver and you tell me which remote is suitable for it, so I order it from uncle Ali (or from you if you're willing to resell it as part of a package, and have already taken that risk of getting it into the EU customs area).

    Even better if building the receiver internally, means it's smaller and/or easier to package in a model.

  18. Posted · Edited by amorti

    So, what would the finished package look like? If the receiver is separate and the battery, does that mean there are now three items to house? And some of those without any Lego connections, so you have to zip tie them on?

    I think that pushes it further into a niche of people who are already proficient in RC gear, as opposed to the originally presented design where it could more or less replace a buwizz unit within a moc.

  19. Posted

    17 minutes ago, NoEXIST said:

    @gyenesvi

    Didn't quite understand the question, but there's no problem to put 2 motors on separate ports instead of stacking 

    Could you have 4 sockets, even if there are only two ESCs? So that two would only be repeaters. In this way, you wouldn't have to stack the PF plugs.

    I imagine it like using the old electric plates to power two 9v motors.

  20. Posted · Edited by amorti

    I'm with @gyenesvi on the geek servos. Lego PF servos are silly money and don't last long at all. Third party PF servos can't do proportional steering.

    PU servos would need firmware, and even once you get them centred and the limits set up, they have quite a lot of slack.

    So, that leaves geek servos. I don't have one and never used one, but seems like an all round better option: smaller, stronger, more accurate, (assuming it's the same as any RC servo) less slack, easier to program in this context.

    Would it be possible to give two twinned PF outputs on the top? Sharing a speed controller, but not requiring plug stacking?

  21. Posted

    2 hours ago, Alex Ilea said:

    This looks interesting and I can see the use for such control unit with a Radio Control. I do however  have to say that the ports seem to be in a very bad place. Why not add 2 more PF ports or 2 more PU ports? Look at Buwizz 3.0, the design of the ports is quite good, but not perfect. In the BW case, after you fill all the PU ports and you want to add the PF connectors, the PF cables will be bent in a less than ideal way, and this is something you should try to improve on.

    I don't think this unit is really intended for cranes and forklifts etc. which can use 6 ports like a bw3 has, but don't require high output.

    It's intended for fast models requiring one servo for steering, one servo for 'something else', and up to 4 drive motors plugged into the two pf ports.

    For me at least, fewer ports and less complications is all for the good.

  22. Posted · Edited by amorti

    I am very into this.

    Like @aFrInaTi0n I am obsessed with making fast motorcycles and cars from Lego.

    So far buwizz3 is the only way to power two Buggy motors without home gaming RC gear. But then it is limited by Bluetooth range and lag. Not to mention long charging times and a 200€ bill if you want to be able to swap the cells.

    If you can make this, it would make buwizz3 obsolete for me.

  24. Posted

    3 hours ago, Sokolov Edward said:

    dismembered panels certainly do not improve the assembly process, IMHO. 

    I must disagree. On the contrary, I believe the new CaDA panels are a boon for vehicle design.

    The new panels can be used with or without the base, giving more shaping and mounting options particularly at smaller scale and in small detail areas.

    If used, the base can be applied in its mirror image position, giving more shaping and mounting options.

    The panels themselves have a more organic shape, allowing more realistic vehicles to be built. Yes, it will take the moment to relearn to design intricate bodies with them, but the tool is sound. Just look at the Mercedes, especially in person, and compare to the usual panels.

    I really don't see a downside with the new panels. I only would wish for a 2L bar piece as a joiner rather than minimum 3L as CaDA seems to have so far.

  25. Posted · Edited by amorti

    4 hours ago, R0Sch said:

     motorized, but this "Make your bricks move" set isn't. So confusing and inconsistent.

    I must agree about the "make your bricks move" slogan. The Suzuki Katana has that on the box, yet it doesn't even have optional motorisation.

    1 hour ago, Kumbbl said:

    Sorry for the strong words...

    This post was from months ago . The issue has been handled by admin: Bruno is on pause from the forum.

    Least said, soonest mended.

    2 hours ago, efferman said:

    I have to agree! With every pin in black it is sometimes hard to see if it is a 2L, a 3L or a pin with crossaxle.

    Me three.

    You have to choose your pain: do you rather accept a less pleasurable building experience, or an uglier model in the Vitrine? For the supercar models I think black pins make most sense, but somehow less important on agricultural and construction sets.