Eurobricks Knights
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SaperPL

  1. The core of this concept is the possibility of using Technic elements to build a small farm tractor that can be manually driven with a knob on the roof, but has drive and steering axles routed to front and back for attachments like a trailer with Powered Up motors and Technic Hub for RC control of the whole set. Gallery: If you like this model, please support it on Lego Ideas here: The submission was recently featured in Lego Ideas newsletter: There are free instructions for this on Rebrickable here: with reasonable quality: Test model/prototype was made in black but the model is designed to be made with red colour accents as shown in renders. Once again, if you like this model, please support it on Lego Ideas here: , it's the first time that I see I might have a chance to push this further since the submission was featured in newsletter. I often see those featured in the newsletter selected as staff picks if they do gather support fast, and I've got over 200 supports in few days thanks to the feature in newsletter.
  2. I'm talking about making the cabin window with transparent pieces instead of building it with those thin 3L liftarms.
  3. Neat idea. Just a loose thought - maybe using the transparent headlight pieces from Ford GT would fit along a transparent curved panel from the small tracked excavator as a cabin windows here?
  4. I would say ships and submarines, helicopters etc also fit in the vehicle definition, you just have to make them themed like those arctic expedition vehicles. The same would go if you want to make an offroad expedition truck - it just needs to fit the arctic theme here with colors and additional features.
  5. Sorry for the follow up question, but I just want to make sure and I should've asked that in the first place - similarly to how it was often in the arctic sets - I assume we can have a main vehicle carrying smaller sub objects (some scientific/drilling equipment for placing/carried living quarters container etc) or minor vehicles (small snowmobiles) as long as they fit inside/can be carried by it.
  6. 1) Is voting going to be still connected with forum account or is it going to be some kind of public voting site with e-mail verification like strawpoll or something like that? 2) Why exactly three motors? It makes sense to make it 4 motors because of the hub having four connection, and thus you get two motors for drive and steering and two for additional functions, but with three it just makes it a single motorized movement for that additional function. Kind of feels like it might limit those builds that want to have RC drive to just having a winch or motorized openable loading ramp/doors. Is the core idea that you either go for RC or have a manual model with 3 motors for some other features then drive as a treadeoff? 3) About the progress in the topic - is it okay to keep my build secret and jump drop everything in the topic last day with photos/screenshots of the phases the project came through? 4) Are gifs accepted in the entry tread as a single photo or not? Some contests back I asked this and it was a no, but it seems as it wasn't a problem in the last contest. 5) why no size/piece count limit? And it's not clear whether it has to be a vehicle or not? We may end up seeing something like a "set" containing an arctic base and multiple vehicles. Is that approach ok? Is it okay to make a base and ton of various vehicles in it?
  7. Interesting approach with using BAR connection for ball instead of a pin to shrink it down. I didn't think about it - good concept. How does the FDM printed ball joint hold itself though? It looks like it'll break off easily unless it's that close connection letting you have more connection area at a cost of lower angles you can achieve. Suspension arm with an axle socket like this is really interesting idea. You could try to figure out a hub for a steering with pivot inside the wheel. I did play around the idea here: but it's not with suspension included.
  8. Seems like the frontpage brought it to TLCB as well - congrats :)
  9. Great model, the ladder coming out from the doors is really neat. When I've seen the container door lock at the bottom, I feel stupid now for not figuring it out when I was making similar doors for a semi trailer :D One thing that I feel like isn't perfect is that the arm handling the container feels a bit fragile, but I guess you've run out of parts at that point or out of space to fit the arm when it's collapsed into the frame.
  10. This thread is about existing parts made by Lego, either still manufactured or not, if I'm not wrong here, and people asking about parts that would be useful in specific cases and so on. What I described is about parts that we, as community, could design/define requirements and potentially 3D print, to maybe show interest in specific types of parts to Lego (and CADA).
  11. Looks awesome. You should update the first photo in the topic to be showing the model without everything opened up, and maybe not that angled, and you might get it frontpaged because it's really good :)
  12. @Milan I wouldn't focus the discussion necessarily on the parts being 3D printed, but more likely for a discussion of what type of parts could be useful. If we focus just on 3D printing, those without access to a printer won't participate. But they could also use studio part designer for combing parts together and bring more ideas into the discussion this way. Also it would be good to separate the 3D printing of highly specialized custom parts like the axle frames that @efferman has designed and focus on more universal parts that could be reused in different scenarios in such discussion. Noteworthy is that some of custom 3d-printed prototype parts could (and will) end up in models designed for CADA, and if they are useful, hopefully Lego may follow in their models at some point, similarly to how it went with flip-flop liftarms.
  13. I started playing around with the idea of European style semi truck again. I built a prototype to test the chassis design with motors side by side. The core idea here is that both motors are oriented towards back so you can put the medium Technic frame on top of them as well as have cables managed up front. EDIT: final version of the semi: Instructions: (RC Semi Tractor) (Box Trailer) Update: (Manual Semi Tractor) The first iteration/prototype: Prototype showcase: It'll take some time before I'll finish the whole semi truck build, but I prepared the instructions for the chassis so you can build it. Instructions are available for free on Rebrickable: Sneak peek of the instructions:
  14. Can you show what you mean? Thanks! Meanwhile someone built the RC model and showed it off in a video:
  15. It would be good if we had a discussion about new types of parts proposed and prototyped by the community in a separate thread as such cool stuff here will be lost between more general questions. But if the thread is not a pinned one with definition of what should get in, it'll be lost quickly in depths of further pages.
  16. I made something similar few years back, but with wheels being directly driven: Some additional info can be found in studio renders here: I'm not sure if you can really shrink something like this much more unless perhaps you would make the wheels as pairs and put the gearing between them, but then you're increasing the friction when rotating them. Note that it's tough tu have the wheels at the edge of the vehicle in something like this because you have to have that small turntable underneath the panels. That's why I built this bus in such rounded way.
  17. I forgot to drop this one here from the contest:
  18. The separate topic for that is a good idea, but the discussion about rules will keep coming up again and again if we're going to discuss ideas for following contests, so potentially it will need to be moderated/moved into that topic each time it happens here.
  19. I'm talking about competitive edge, so when both models achieve let's say full scores on all other criteria and then what counts is build quality/some awesomeness factor. Here in context of this specific set being medium-large sized thanks to the truck which isn't really that complex model, it's just increasing the overall size and with two sets with two models each, you have perfect photo representing this contest. Yes, I wasn't clear on this. Most of the other entries side by side in one scene photo are either lower quality, so before I would consider this competitive edge of the size itself, or the photos are not the same quality. The only other entry in that contest that did the same thing (set with two sets/multiple models presented on a single quality photo) was the arctic rescue. My point is that your winning forklift transport presented itself well on that comparison photo but IMO the entry itself wouldn't look that good if it was just the forklift comparison, and I don't think the truck was that challenging to build, and on top of that the ability to make that good comparison photo was thanks to having parts for the original model/having original model, which obviously doesn't have anything to do with skill or part of the challenge, but still this affected the awesomeness factor for this photo, I think. People have different focus when it comes to what is fun for them. For some it's to just have fun building as you said, for others it is about getting feedback and getting better in building itself. But there are people that want to take part in competition that makes sense for them and try getting better and taking part in the competition. But it needs to make sense to them for them to take part in it again... I didn't say it shouldn't be ranked highly - I said that bigger models effectively have competitive edge. Now explain to me, if for you it supposedly is all about precisely representing the original set model, why isn't my entry somewhere up there around the podium? If the core criteria for the contest was to remake the model as close as possible to the original one and size or amount of functions and parts shouldn't matter, then why not pick a $10 set or even a polybag set and recreate it? If such thing would be perfectly recreated, then should it be on the podium or not? Here is where this competitive edge comes into play because simply bigger model will have more room for that awesomeness over just base criteria of representing the original model perfectly. And for the record, the if you compare the transporter to @Samolot's tow truck and read the explanation why the tow truck wasn't on the podium, you will see that according to the explanation, the forklift transporter wasn't perfect either - Samolot's tow truck used panels where applicable and closed two instances of the same gap on the sides, and the transporter did close the roof of the tractor cab and used panels on the forklift so there's something not adding up here.
  20. I meant things like this: Where simply you can have long tractor to squeeze more functions in it, then there's a dolly that has some functionality for detaching the low part of the trailer and it has some mechanism to raise it, then you have the trailer which can have a long end that can fit a better mechanism for steering. The width though is the question whether the requirement is the scale or overall width of the truck, but still if the length is unlimited, there are various types of oversize load carriers that can be built with more bricks. Simple road train isn't exciting, but something like this can get you bonus scores and also if length is not a limit, then you can build the tractor that is twice as long as someone else's European style semi tractor. Compare the 3rd place Forklift Transporter in TC20 to @GerritvdG's 8835 - in both cases the challenging part was the forklift, while the transporter wasn't that hard to achieve apart from having parts. Moreover I feel like it was a winner for having built both models for side by side photo. Your hovercraft was awesome as well with how you used the curved panels all over it. And there were more small to medium sized entries there that could've been on the podium. My point is not that it's not fair that a bigger model being obviously more detailed and polished shouldn't win, but that the construction of competitions without specific size makes it so that picking smaller models is bound to end up outside of the podium and for newcomers it's going to be discouraging them from entering again. Having a specific size requirement means also not only what is your upper size limit, but also lets you know how big you need to build to be competitive. To checke whether this is actually true, I think we would have to check how many of newcomers stopped re-entering other contests after going small in their first and only contest and ask them about the reason why they never entered another contest. Also in context of TC20, one 8880 was on 5th place while, and this is obviously just my subjective opinion, wasn't really that good, and it was just big and had many features that usually fit in supercars at this size. And in context of aesthetic quality, IMO your hovercraft and @GerritvdG's forklift were better because they were less messy and in spirit of their original models. In contrast to that, my studless 8816 model wasn't really a big thing to achieve because the original model was like "my first technic beams use" kind of 90 degree connected technic beams and it's only advanced technique was the fenders which in my model I got for free because of bent liftarms, so I don't have any problem with it being scored so low. For me, I feel like it shouldn't be about who makes bigger thing with more functions, but if someone does something as you did with base of the hovercraft fitting so well that original base custom piece or how @Samolot put together panels on the tow truck body to modernize it, or figuring out whatever type of mechanism or shape in small size, is something that should be rewarded, but we're not going to get there if size and amount of functions being treated as awesomeness factor has significantly more weight than unique building techniques and solving problems. So I'd prefer contest with even ground because of that.
  21. Is that pin hole next to the curved edge sticking out a good thing? Is that going to be useful? Because I feel like this is something that is mostly catching my eye when looking at those new panels that it's sticking out from the edge.
  22. It's seems like a good idea. I wonder though if this is something that should or shouldn't have size requirement because small size requirement could make everyone follow similar mechanical principles for walking, while unlimited size could mean going for some mindstorms stuff and implementing full fledged hexapods etc, which may deter others from even trying when they see some of those expensive approaches in progress. About Star Wars - I think you mean AT-AT