SaperPL

Eurobricks Knights
  • Content Count

    770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SaperPL

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. You can fit more functions in a bigger model. Of course if you make a low quality model that's just bigger, it doesn't do it, but it's easier to achieve awesomeness factor with a larger model. In the most recent contest I think all of the winning entries were the ones with most functions/mechanisms, one of them being really small, but still it is easier to fit more functions in a bigger model and still look good. Despite there being between 6 and 8 other entries that perfectly implemented the idea of the contest, even in jury voting it was the ones with most functions being selected for podium. Second example is TC20 where there were multiple smaller entries that didn't stand a chance against bigger sets being rebuilt in studless - with a specific size in mind, it is clear for newcomers what they need to build.
  6. For me the point of size restriction is to prevent gaining points for awesomeness factor just because you have more parts. Yes, in case of simple road train that might not make much difference, you're right, I just dropped that there as an example. Maybe a better example would be doing something like oversize load transport where the load would be some huge wind turbine or bridge part that would make the whole thing really long despite the big thing not really being part of a Technic truck itself. But mainly length limit for the sake of not going into long soviet military trucks just to be able to build something bigger.
  7. I wonder if just width should be enough, maybe maximum length would be good as well, so it won't end up with some people building things like topol-M or some road trains while everyone else would try to make some reasonably sized standard truck.
  8. You mean not to limit the amount of potential functions amount? If it's about semi truck with trailer then yeah, but for standalone truck without trailer it'd end up either with same types of trucks that we see everywhere. One really well made function + one secondary function in a specific scale/size feels more interesting and approachable than competing who can squeeze more common functions into the build. The good examples are the bar scanner truck that has pick up and dump functions or 8109 that I was redoing which has platform elevation with rear axle kneeling as one function and tow bar as another. In both cases it's good enough for making the model not just a truck, but it makes it so that you need to figure out some kind of utility vehicle for which you can make that one function in a really cool way rather than going for standard mobile crane/cherry picker/tow truck with outriggers and crane arm operated by multiple cranks.
  9. I also like the idea of truck competition, but I'd prefer the size to be defined by width/fitting in a frame and matching scale rather than which wheel size you'd use because this way you'll be able to make a truck that uses bigger or smaller wheels in proportion to overall size without being allowed or forced to make a smaller or larger model overall. Secondly, I'm wondering if it could be good to make a contest where you have to have exactly specific amount of functions on top of basic ones like steering/engine/suspension, rather than at least specific amount meaning you have to do exactly two or three and no more. This could potentially mean having more interesting builds focused on single main function and less of those common trucks with knuckle boom cranes. For example a semi tractor that has control over trailer's supports/stands and/or ramp at the back of trailer through the fifth wheel could be an interesting build. In general either semi truck with trailer or trailer itself at specific size could be a cool competition to have if we'd get a specific size of the tractor chassis for it. If we were to go for the RC, the challenge to tackle could be to have all motors either in the trailer or in the tractor and there must be some motorized functions in the trailer - trailer is bigger so it's easier to fit stuff inside, but the steering input through the fifth wheel is tricky.
  10. Yes, but most of them were really small for both fake piston engine and suspension unless we're talking about potential upscaling them / "reimagining" them into what could they be. Unless it could be a contest where mustang and 99X are excluded from the selection and it's only about those smaller ones and everyone has to figure out how to handle it in wacky way. It could be an interesting contest.
  11. The point is for those who want to take a part in health fair competition, the outline what is more important in scoring will let them make informed decision. Rules, restrictions and limitations are what makes things more challenging, not randomness. Well, if the contest would be about replicating some lego set and the criteria would explicitly state that the number of implemented functions count and are valued the most, obviously this would end up with a lot of entries being the same model with a lot of functions, but at the same time the criteria could be the ratio of implemented function to original or at least X amount of functions etc. Still it would mean that we would have similarities to adhere to the rules, but it's similar to for example size requirements for TC18 where you had to make a car fitting car transporter and still people made different cars. This gives us transparency for how the categories votes work, but not how jury is scoring in each category. How they will score will depend on whether there are specific criteria for scoring with explanation of how things are scored/penalised. And with this doesn't happen, then jury can still significantly affect the results without being transparent. Interesting idea - streamlined and potentially not as cumbersome for part collection as the ones where we go for full custom models, but I'm afraid that this is an example where we could end up with a lot of similar entries due to the requirements of those specific functions. Rather than that, I would consider a contest for car transporter scale modular car with suspension and fake engine where the chassis is something that can be shown separately and used for other body. You could enter with a body from a pullback mustang or senna, bolide or tecnica if you want, but it wouldn't be a must.
  12. This is something that you seem to not get - if you make it so that after the models are built there is public vote on which category should be valued the most, it means that we don't have those values when we're deciding what to build at the beginning of the contest. That's why for us, me and @gyenesvi this makes it into a gamble when deciding on what to build and how to approach the contest criteria. I don't know how else can we explain this that if you want to make the challenge feel fair and reasonable, you need a solid criteria for the scoring system that don't change after you've made your entry. I get it that you want to make jury and public vote in parallel, but it shouldn't affect the foundations of decision making for those who enter the contest. Instead of voting on criteria, community could vote for awesomeness factor and this score could be either added to overall jury score with a ratio predefined at the beginning of the contest between criteria score and awesomeness factor, or the awesomeness factor would be something that would decide which entry should win between two with the same criteria score. But obviously this would mean that jury shouldn't score awesomeness, just the build quality itself (and other criteria). And in this case again making solid rules on how points will be given, what will be penalised with negative points in a category should be precisely defined and followed by jury, otherwise the community vote will be meaningless if jury vote already decides the order of entries. But it could solve the problem that always brought up if someone proposes point scoring of criteria instead of F1 places that we would end up with multiple stages of scoring because of that, but at the same time there is a risk that community vote will not be used if criteria is not precise enough for enough of the entries to be near to max score.
  13. @Bartybum @brunojj1 I think the new/custom panels and other pieces are a good way to make a smaller licensed model look good and not be messy, as long as CADA has checked potential uses in different places for this piece. When Lego introduces a new piece it's always that most of us look forward to new ways of building with those, while if CADA makes a custom piece the response is that it's cheating. Lego also did things like that where they make a custom piece for a specific set, so it shouldn't be treated as cheating. In both cases it depends on how big portion of the model is handled through such new custom piece and whether it's something that is actually reusable in other models or doesn't really make sense anywhere else.
  14. But then we get back one of my core points - jury should score on specific criteria/categories and not in order who's which place. And also if you want your public vote system to actually affect those scores fairly, those scores from jurors should also follow some rules that are clear at the beginning of the contest before you enter so you can decide how to approach it. If jury can also score those categories however they are interpreting the rules, you can have someone score 25% on specific criteria for example simply because of interpretation being different than what the contestant assumed is okay, and even if the category is worth a lot due to how community votes, the damage was already done at the stage of jury vote and also everyone will get score for this criteria multiplied. What I'm opposing in general is any system that makes it so that you don't know the final system of scoring at the beginning of the competition. If we want it to be a fair competition or even challenge, the rules should be clear so everyone can figure out how to approach the challenge within the rules. If there's a lot left for interpretation that jury doesn't want to explain beforehand, then it's not a fair competition. It also includes the scaling of how valued the criteria/categories are as in your proposition, because it will effectively mean how important each of the criteria will be and how much it'll affect overall score. If for example amount of functions were to be the highest valued criteria but the quality of mechanism were to be lowest, you can approach it by making some junky contraption with dozens of functions being implemented poorly but being there, so having 0 points for buld quality of those mechanisms won't hurt that much when you got max score for how much mechanisms you managed to fit. But if you have some kind of view of how the requirements work and what you can and cannot do and make a decision based on limited info that you have because you don't get answers or simply you wouldn't even think about asking specific question, and then either when you're already in the middle of building or at voting stage contest shows that was okay to go with something that you assumed would be not accepted, it means that you didn't really know what is acceptable or not so you couldn't make a properly informed choice. Not explaining/establishing the rules to a reasonable degree at the beginning of the competition, is equivalent of a game master running the RPG game with a specific scenario in mind where specific classes or races are going to have a disadvantage while the players don't know that and some of them will pick those. Even in a game that is not about rewards once you realise that for the whole game you're unlucky because you've picked wrong, it's not a fun experience.
  15. But my point was something like this: you get two entries like so: Best in category A, second in category B by 95% of the top score, second in category C by 95% of the top score, second in category D by 95% of the top score. Last in category A, first in category B, first in category C, last in category D. If I understood correctly your point distribution it would be that we only distribute points for winning in a category and the amount of points based on how people voted. If that's correct, then we get something like this for the entries above: Entry getting just points for winning category A despite being almost perfect in all other categories and not compromising anywhere Entry getting points for winning in categories B and C while completely compromising on everything else This could go weird both ways, either if you end up in this specific situation and someone wins by winning in two lesser categories despite the entry being really poor in other categories, or you could have one category that gets most of the points from public vote and even entries winning two or three other categories taking the second place if over 50% of people vote for one category. The idea to rate how important categories are might be good as long as all entries get all of their scores in specific criteria multiplied by those criteria categories, but my understanding is that this isn't what you're proposing here. You explicitly picked on others stating their opinion to as if to glorify yours being the best one and only reasonable one. That is why I picked on that it's still just another opinion. Well, it's not. Others are trying to figure out something simple that will be acceptable, yours is really weird, but again, that's just my opinion. No, what you're doing is effectively following the same thing that others are doing - making a straw man to defeat easily - instead of addressing actually my arguments. It's easier to defeat an argument by blowing it out of proportion to show how outrageous it would be if blown to those proportions, but that is only correct if it's about a mechanism that actually works this way (there is some growth defined in itself) on it's own, for example if I proposed that we keep increasing the amount of criteria in each contest - then extrapolating it would be valid argument. Otherwise - don't hide behind "other's said so", just address my arguments if you want to counter them. What I agree with is referring to previous contests and showing examples of how things could be scored, but also I don't remember anyone tried doing so fully.
  16. But if there is a requirement for the contest to make something specific and someone goes against rules or makes a model that is just superficial and it looks good on the photos, but doesn't really do a good job on the other requirements, it can still win. I'm not saying that we should specifically promote ugly builds just because they are rigid, but I think there should be a penalty for compromising build quality for just the looks for example. Unless the contests are supposed to be just about the looks, then if that's true, then it should be okay to cheat on the inside and build things with modified and 3d printed pieces, glue and ungodly building techniques. The good example of that is again TC20 where one of two mostly voted entries was something that was really not what the contest was supposed to be about. It was awesome and that's why it was voted for, but that's one example what will happen if you want simple voting system and some specific topic of the contest that can be ignored in popular vote. TC18 on the other side was a really good example of a contest where it was pretty clear what needs to be done and everyone was making something in similar size and similar functionality, so the awesomeness factor was a good enough criteria for public vote.
  17. Specific rules are a way to have clean and fair competition. And again - I never said that I want 100 page lawyer document. As I said before we have literally one sentence explaining criteria specific to the specific contest, within a page of general rules that don't really explain how the criteria would be judged. I'm not postulating 100 pages. I'm asking for one paragraph for each of 4-6 criteria specific to the contest. That would be additional one page maybe. The fact that people are asking for explanation over and over again in each contest is a solid proof that contest criteria are not ironed out. Now go and draw yourself an axis with natural numbers to see how many natural numbers you can fit between 0 and 100 (if you want to count in pages) - don't extrapolate to ridiculous numbers just so you can prove your point. You're simply wrong and over blowing numbers just to prove a point where the thing we're talking about isn't something that is bound to get there (to infinity), is simply not an argument. We get no explanation of criteria outside of single word for most of the criteria specified in each contest. That's zero explanation on what will be valued. Quality criteria as noted by many of us can be valued differently between the looks, the number of mechanisms, the rigidity of the build, the uniqueness of building techniques and so on. Fair point is that I misunderstood what you meant by giving points to categories. With that said, your system seems really convoluted. It would be clear if everyone was to distribute points between categories and then those would affect the jury scores through multiplication. But from what I understood in your system, it's just for determining the order of winners between categories? What happens if the same entry wins two categories that are less valued by a hair? Does it mean that this one will score those points on two categories and win the first place even if there's another winner of a more popular category that was really close with points on those other two? Or does your system assume that all winners get their scores multiplied by category popularity points in each category? That's just your personal opinion... I wouldn't call your system tangible. And still if you want it to make sense, the jury should vote on specific criteria and if you want that to make sense, the criteria should be specifically explained and followed by jury, otherwise jury can have different interpretation of criteria than the community and it doesn't matter that people like one category or quality of a model the most if jury sees it differently and will end up scoring models completely differently than the community would (if they were to vote properly) and you'd end up with different first places in each category. What I would say is a out of the question for a contest in your idea is that decision what is valued more in the contest happens after the entries were already finished. This is something that should be clear at the beginning of the contest, otherwise it's either a lottery if you made a good decision or not, or we could end up with contest after a contest being dominated by category that was most popular in the first contest of this type. All the problems of this discussion about scoring boils down to not wanting to precisely score on all criteria because it's a lot of work for all entries, while also it poses a risk of having multiple entries with exactly same amount of points, so jury doesn't want to do it because it would mean second stage for resolving such conflicts. But such conflicts of two or more entries with same amount of points also happened with public voting through places from 1st to 6th, and also each time there are a lot of quality entries we get back to same statement that judging will be hard - and it will be hard if you're supposed to decide between two entries that are both really good. Judging through criteria with specific explanation what will be penalised is a semi-automated work where there's just need of few judges to even things out a little. Unless of course you want to make a contest where community votes, but then it's either simple or you end up with weird contraptions like you've proposed here. Because that doesn't solve the problem of awesomeness factor dominating when it comes to public voting where most of people will just pick few entries that they like in a contest that is more than just awesomeness and is about doing a specific thing. That is why there are two types of contest - the ones with jury and the ones with public votes and in general this is a good idea so we can have a contest with more interesting goal and terms where jury needs to rate entries and we can have more streamlined contest where it's obvious what are they about and it's just about awesomeness factor in the voting. Current system for public voting is good. The problem is that it's not going to fit more complex topics where awesomeness factor shouldn't be the only one.
  18. @Berthil the problem with this approach is that whenever you introduce separate categories and just a single place on the podium for each category, there is a chance of situation where two awesome models fight for one place in one category while significantly worse/lower quality model has it easy for that other podium if in that criteria he's just slightly ahead of what those two superior models have. Also even if you give people points to distribute for each criteria/category, how can you be sure they won't just dump it on a single entry that they like? Of course a lot of us will vote properly, but there will be ones that'll just pick few they like the most without looking at the categories and filtering their decision through that. It's either having specific criteria being specifically judged by jury based on specific rules, or a streamlined contest where the only thing that is rated is awesomeness factor because everything else is equal and mandatory.
  19. I noticed a little detail about 71708 part - put 15100 (pin with pin hole) into the pin hole on the shorter edge of 71708. Try to turn the pin around. When inserted from one side, it's like snapping in place for every 90 degree rotations inside the pin hole, but only from one side of the 71708, on the other side it's either weaker or non existent. I checked it through few of those 71708 and all have it, but not always on the same side. There's no visible difference of that pin hole from the others. I wonder if someone else can confirm this on his pieces.
  20. As shown in that exact contest, there may be a huge difference between what jury values (what is the interpretation of the rules) versus what community votes for mostly. If jury pre-selects limited amount of entries in different manner then what the community would vote for, you may end up with a situation where something that you liked the most, or you'd put in 2nd or 3rd place is not there in the pool because jury didn't pick that. Unless it's really clear for the contestants at the beginning of contest how things are supposed to be judged by the jury, it's a slippery slope either way (before or after popular vote) where jury has significant power to override what the community would choose. The only clean situation is where jury goes precisely through a checklist of precise criteria to make initial scores i then it's voting for top 10 of those who scored highest, were penalised the least. But again - even just proposing for the jury/admins to first vet and disqualify those who went against the terms of the contest before the voting is seemingly going to take too long for the time frames that Jim has when it comes to organising the prizes and their shipping. So any multi-stage winners selection might be out of the question.
  21. @Akassin What could make sense (in context of people not taking into account actual criteria when voting) is the approach of game jams that only contestants vote, so there's a higher chance that the voting people are deep into the rules. This doesn't guarantee though they will actually vote according to the spirit of the competition, as well as we want to let people participate in voting even if they didn't have time to make models for the contest. For me the ideal situation would be vetting stage where jury is checking all entries against criteria first and disqualifying those who didn't go according to the spirit of the competition (with some room for discussing this) and then public vote, but I know that it would take significantly more time and this it's not going to work here if there's limited time frame for handling the contest. So I think it makes sense for two types of contests - one is where the criteria are a bit more specific and so the jury is voting, but again, it should be pretty clear how the criteria will be evaluated, and it would be good to get scores for all criteria instead of the order, because I think this is the part where it takes time to figure out what is better than what, and the second one which the topic is really simple and clear like it was with TC18 (make a car matching specific size) and it's about public vote. But since fleshing out the criteria description seems to be too much, the second approach with specific size/part limit with simple fairly open topic and public vote is a better idea. And I think that we could even re-do some of the contests with specific size simply because we have new parts and new people to participate in them.
  22. Really cool model. Looking through the instructions makes you appreciate the building techniques in this little thing. It surprised me that the engine is actually working since there is no steering. I wish there was a way to fit the steering into this model. out of curiosity - is the blue axle-pin in the fifth wheel made blue by design? Looking at the instruction, you could have done the attachment point in black the same as in the front portion of this fifth wheel.
  23. Do I have to remind you that the contest was supposed to be a public vote in the first place and the jury vote was added in the meantime? Yes, before the public vote. But my point is again and again that it's about the terms not being clear to a point where multiple people made the same "mistake" and that was the reason stated by the jury for not picking that specific model that was one of two with most points in popular vote. Making it a jury vote that could ignore what people voted on by picking favourites out of selected group halfway through the contest was not cool despite the rules stating that rules can change - still as few times other stated, there's a different approach when you're making a model for jury vote vs public vote. Yes, the second one, the moon buggy was impressive, but it was actually clear that it wasn't in the spirit of the contest. And back then I discussed that there should be a jury vetting to disqualify such entries that go completely in a different direction, but before voting. The clear move would be for jury to come in and disqualify those who clearly went against, and for example there was a one 8880 which was really cool as well, but it wasn't so clear that it was that because of the panels while original set was just the frame/outline style. If those were to be disqualified before the voting, the voting outcome might be different as well, not to mention that it would be nice if someone from moderation would come to their topics and tell them that it's not in the spirit of the competition and that they would be disqualified. You know those are two different situations/issues despite both scoring the same first place in popular vote. And you're trying to turn it into something as I didn't like jury removing invalid entries at all. If it was true, then I wouldn't suggest vetting the entries before the voting back then, and I would straight go to being fully against jury deciding anything, which I did not. Should I explain it with an axis analogy again? Disqualifying clearly out of the scope of the contest entry was a valid move, disqualifying those that were made according to the rule of a thumb stated in the comments that it must be instantly recognisable, was not. Also don't read my comments if you don't want to. Noone is forcing you. But try to be civilised and don't talk about me moaning and other lowkey attempts to insult me.
  24. How is the grip/traction on those sleek tires? Are those rubber like or are those more like plastic? I'm also wondering how this kind of surface will age on the rubber tire because if it'll go bad over years, then I'd think about stocking up on those :D
  25. That would be true for the contests with public vote, in which I can accept that people do chose what they like, and that's why I keep talking about making contests with a fixed/defined size. But when I argued about the bigger models having more features being pay2win-like, there was response that it's not true for the jury vote and that there are multiple contests for where it wasn't true, and also for example TC20 in which I took part had entries removed from podium for not perfectly following some criteria despite being awesome and most voted. So my whining is about ambiguity of one contest being different to another when it comes to approach to handling same or similar criteria, even within one contest similar thing can be treated as disqualifying for one entry and acceptable for another. And for this specific contest, I actually did go through like all of Technic sets before I decided to go with that truck, while for example not going for extreme adventure because I assumed not being able to have the same color panels would be disqualifying similarly to how Samolot's tow truck was treated because he used panels, where in that contest it was really pedantic when it comes to going "as close as original" despite the rule of a thumb being stated in the comments that it just needs to be instantly recognisable, while in this contest it seemingly wasn't so pedantic since you could've had the different color scheme. And I think it's kind of understandable among community here that colors matter because of specific parts ability in specific colors. And again - this argument that I should already know that it works like this is not valid for me because for me it's not that I'm not winning, but I'd like more people to take part in the contests because in contests with a lot of entries, there often are multiple interesting ideas or building techniques that you can later get inspired from. But if the contests is strictly made around catering to the people that are already understanding how they work, it gets harder for the outsiders to get in and feel welcomed.