SaperPL

Eurobricks Knights
  • Content Count

    766
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SaperPL

  1. It's not only about my complaints stated here, it's also about track record of what happened in some previous contests, at least from my point of view. Good example was how TC20 - Studless Recreation went down in the end. One of the winning by popular vote entries was "disqualified" for using modern approach with panels and not just frame with wholes, despite the requirement being explained as it has to be instantly recognizable, which the entry obviously was. There were 7 total entries with the modernizing with panels approach, I think, which shows it wasn't that clear and proves my point that contestants will spend their time doing something based on initial explanation of the rules and then it occurs at the voting stage that it was meaningless because they didn't fit the valid interpretation of the rules. We will keep having contests with great topics like this one, where we'll end up with a lot of great submissions like now we have, and jury will have to figure out which model should take the podium despite two or more models 100% fulfilling the criteria of the contest. So despite there not being a criteria for more functions or more effort, more complexity, they will have to count at some point despite the terms of the contest having no such things in criteria, because jury has to pick something in the end. And I'm not saying the popular vote itself is a solution for this either, because again, if the terms don't go precise into details, it's again up to everyone's interpretation. The argument about Jim's time is IMO wrong here, not to take away from him spending his free time on the contests, but if he's not spending more time to flesh out the terms clearly at the beginning, he will have to spend more time answering questions and figuring out the results fairly. My argument is that by not making clear and precise criteria, the contests keep creating traps for people to fall in, and when they do, they will feel like they've wasted their time.
  2. I never said I demanded anything. I would like != I demand... Don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I have valid arguments and you are always responding without anything solid except for "it worked so far", which is not an argument. It's like saying humanity survived for ages without electricity - that's true, but also "so what?". What you are doing is organising contests in a way where rules don't matter and you always can arbitrarily pick what you like regardless of the rules, or maybe even you specifically make the rules in this way so they are not precise or even vague, so you can then arbitrarily pick something without a problem later on. That is why I'm so hell bent on the rules being stated and executed more precisely. Also to prove a point - I've seen a few times already that you don't have a problem with changing the way of selecting winners between jury and popular vote or mixed even after the mid point of the contest time. Even in this contest you were considering it. That's because you are never really improving with the rules nor having valid arguments about Well, what takes fun in the contest for me is knowing that what I decided to build may make no sense in the end despite being a perfect choice adhering to rules, because there's a lot left for jury's or voters own interpretation. I'll probably stop bothering taking part in contests that are not proper competition with solid criteria for evaluating the entries. Why should "this is my final word!" stop me from stating my opinion (again)?
  3. Well, I'm digging into this because for me what's detracting from having fun in the contest is the feeling that I'm making something that completely doesn't make sense from the moment I choose what I want to do, if I don't know exactly what the voting criteria mean. For me, the part of the fun in the contest is also the competition and trying to get better at each contest I participate in. But if I keep failing in contests that are constructed in a way that only afterwards you can figure out what would be valued the most, it's not a meaningful competition for me. Note that there is no criteria about the amount of functions or size of the build, which means that if Jury were to stick just to this, winning should be possible with a model of this kind: If it was representative of the set it was based on. My point here is that by the criteria laid out there picking a harder to implement model that had more functions shouldn't be valued higher. On a side note for future contests - I would also like to see a refinement of the rule about discussion topic requirement that would make it clear whether entering the contest in last moment and laying out the progress in few days or even hours is okay or not. From the perspective of competition, this allows you to sit out and see what others are making and calculate what they need to do to top-up the existing entries. I know this leaves someone with less time, but again, for someone who has a sizeable collection of loose parts from various sets, it may not be a drawback. Also you could be making multiple potential models for submission and deciding last minute without others knowing what you're working on. I think this kind of behavior is against the spirit of the competition where most of us are openly discussing what we're making, and it should be regulated.
  4. But are you going to explain how the voting criteria were evaluated? Not by stating who got what score, but explaining what and how was valued for those criteria, because this: still doesn't explain much. About originality: For now, I can only see one entry that should get a score for originality which is the barcode truck, if we're talking about an original approach to implementing mechanisms. For every other submission (I think) it was just about solving the problem in limited space, but that was core requirement for the contest anyway. And also if you think about the barcode truck from this perspective, you could also treat it the same way, so we'd end up making it so that the originality is about uniqueness of the set you have picked and managed to solve its problems. I'd like to have it laid out clearly, if not in this contest, in future ones, so we know what's important and how to tackle this. About staying true to original: How much penalty will there be if a function is not exactly working like in original full scale model? Will this be proportional to the total amount of functions in the set? How does it combine together with the looks though - there are set models that are more about looks and have less mechanical functions and there are models that have many functions but are a bit more messy in their construction because of that. Will this be somehow balanced between functions and look depending on how the original model was made? About shrinking scale: Will the shrink ratio affect the score in a way that the smaller the better or is it just a checkbox that you need a reasonable amount of shrink there? I would like to actually see where I end up with my submission if I'm outside of podium, even if I'd end up being sharing the same spot with multiple other contestants. I'd still want to know if I was going in a good direction or not.
  5. Wow, that was fast. It's like a shortest build thread ever... But the model came out really well, have to give you that. Those gifs are really nice too :) Are there limiters preventing the track assemblies from freely turning around axles? I don't know if the original model had something like that either though.
  6. Looks really good, but there are two details that caught my eye - the windshield's lower edge arc is sticking out over the hood and while I know it was kind of like that in the original model, it feels weird. The second thing is that the doors are not sitting flush with the rear wheel arches. I would recommend either trying to re-take the photos or tweak brightness/contrast on the photos because with a lot of black, it's hard to look at the details in dark areas. Also if you want to put comparison shots like in the last group of photos, I'd rather be looking at a single scene where I can see the details, or maybe put one above the other if they are horizontally wide, rather than just "a proof" that there is a side-by-side comparison, beacue this wide strip with 6 photos i hard to see actual details and compare things. Shots from upper left and bottom right look okay, just make them fit both in one rectangle for 1024x1024 requirement, if you are planning to put them in the entry.
  7. Yeah, the original set was really weird so that makes sense to approach it this way. If possible, I would really like to see this perfected after the competition in a way that you don't need all that platforms and just one spot with one gear rack input. The looks of the model itself are perfect representation of that iconic green look. That detail of green color + decal where the inputs are is a neat touch as well. By the way, out of curiosity - do you know what's up with that light grey area in the centre of the dumping spot when you're showing it from above at 2:28? Is it a big grey sticker that you later replaced or is it just a video artifact? In other shots it's clear that there are bricks.
  8. That works pretty good for what it is. You should definitely score the points for originality here. What surprised me is that you can fail to pick up the wheel. I feel like you either should use a thicker/wider wheel for the presentation, or the grabber should be lower, almost at the ground level. What I don't like is that you need separate input to return the grabber to default position. This feels off if the gear rack line is supposed to be input for a function and then you have to split a function between two inputs. At this point it may too late for that, but wouldn't it make more sense to figure out some rubber band/wind up motor spring mechanism to return the grabber back to default position once there is no input for those gears anymore? And find a gearing that doesn't add too much resistance to it, but it's enough to push the grabber through the apex point over the dummy code pilot box? If you'd just have two inputs, then what I feel would be possible is that you could add rails ensuring the truck hits the gear racks properly (maybe even something correcting it through steering), but more importantly if you have pick up input on one side and dump on the other, you could use the same input for both functions, but the difference would be whether you're going at it forward or in reverse. So by tweaking the positions where' you're grabbing the input off the floor along the length of the truck, you may could use the same spot where you're dropping the tire to turn around and pick it up again with the same gear rack input without having to manually place the tire in pickup spot after dumping it.
  9. EDIT: Final version of the model: Instructions on rebrickable: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-106054 Gallery on Imgur: https://imgur.com/a/M10jtrz Original Post: I figured out a proper steering mechanism for a chassis with full-size piston engine at the front. This chassis doesn't have any issues with leeway on steering or ground clearance. I built a prototype body for this chassis that is easily detachable. I'm not fully satisfied with the look yet, so I will have to iterate more on the body before I'll make instructions for this model. Noteworthy ist that this kind of construction should be also feasible for RC semi tractor where the motors would go where the seats are in this model. Video shows the details, how it works and how the body is being attached:
  10. MichalKK built this in original color scheme and shared photos on rebrickable I probably should revisit this design with new toilet paper roll piece and flipflop liftarms. Is there anything else new that could make sense in the revision of the design?
  11. Exactly - that is why I think there should be specific metrics outlined precisely for judging the entries when the contest starts. Without contestants knowing those metrics at the beginning of the contest, you will have to penalise some of them for decisions they made at the beginning or throughout the project, without knowing how it will be judged. But you will have to do it to come up with a list of winners. I'm wondering now what will be the metrics for voting criteria of originality - is it only about build techniques/mechanisms implemented/how they are implemented or is it also about the set that was picked? Will contestants that picked the same set be penalised as unoriginal? Will the ones picking iconic well known sets be treated as not so original? Also we're mostly building cars, bikes, trucks, tractors and construction equipment outside of the contest, so picking something like that may also feel like it's not something original.
  12. I guess the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence - I could say the same about your small "big red" :D One thing is the rigidity and parts falling off - yes, they tend to make a mess in those - but the other thing is whether something is considered a legal technique or not. If you were to create instruction for how to assemble the row of those pistons, you'll have to provide specific distance for the offset in some custom way. Similarly you shouldn't insert a pin into a thin liftarm just partially - it may not fall off, but is it the intended use of this connection type? hmm... <takes a look at three silver awards under your profile> :P Interesting. I was thinking this might have a problem with raising the boom under some additional load with those linear actuators. I guess the wall of the house in scale is not that big of a load. I don't remember what weights I checked for my mobile crane apart from pallet + barrel from a forklift set, so maybe I did try to pick up some heavy stuff there and remembered that wrong...
  13. Looks awesome, a strong contender for the first place, I think. I expected the boom sides to look terrible from the studio render, but they are fine. I don't like how the seat of operator is built, it feels like a mini sofa without cushions. I'd try to build the back and bottom separately - use a bracket with studs on the side on that door hinge structure behind the seat and attach seat back to it. I still don't like the yellow half bushes attached by a quarter of stud onto the end of the axle in the engine. I don't know where I've seen it, either on some bricklink contest or on ideas, but I feel like it wouldn't count there as acceptable technique. Apart from it I wonder if those two small linear actuators are enough to lift an actual weight with the boom extended. I remember I had a problem with a single one and half as big boom in my mini mobile crane and had to double that. Whole thing looks really good though and I want to see the video. Great job :)
  14. 8109 Flatbed Truck Functions: - HoG steering with knob on the roof of the cab - Flatbed platform raising with rear axles' kneeling mechanism - Tow bar/tow platform hidden underneath rear bumper/lights bar - Winch on the platform with a latch/lock mechanism Original model: Pics: Full Size Photo Original Model Full Size Photo Original Model Full Size Photo Original Model Full Size Photo Video: Thread: Free instructions: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-155661
  15. Video: Instructions on Rebrickable: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-155661
  16. I think I'm finished with the instruction. Managed to grab few openings to go through all of it. Will try to release the video and instructions tomorrow. Because I'm short on time recently, I didn't test this step by step physically building it, so proceed with caution, but I think the steps should make sense.
  17. I wonder if you'll manage to source the parts in time if you're starting now. Unless you have inventory where you can steal the parts in required colors from the models. I don't like the idea of coming in at last week before the deadline and rolling out the whole progress while knowing what others are building, but I suppose it isn't against rules as long as you can show the progress in the thread and not just drop the finished MOC thread at the last minute (which happens often in my local LUG for the MOC of the month contest, which is why I don't like it). But well, at this point with all strong contenders with complex mechanisms, it's going to be hard to compete, but still I want to see how your build will come out, so keep pushing it forward :)
  18. I thought someone has a know how to make those kind of animations in studio, but this is nuts - 146 renders ?!?!
  19. Initial steps for instruction done:
  20. I just noticed that most of the sets with a tow bar have it implemented in a non-functional way either because there is no tilt for steering with the towed vehicle attached or because of lack of clearance for the bumper area in front of the wheel. If you were to put some model at the matching scale on it, the small turntable and its attachment above would be too close to the front of that car. The closest to working properly, I think, is what is there in 42008 Service Truck, but you'd tilt the towed vehicle, it'd start touching the arm at the corners. I wonder whether we should care about this being functional at all...
  21. Well, yeah, the color theme is something that fits some kind of special firefighting vehicles. EDIT: Btw, what's interesting with the original set is that the B-model has completely different vibe:
  22. Thanks and well, not sure about that, I wouldn't tow such big plane on a flatbed :D The grey color is intentional here - the original model had the battery visible from the back of the cab and there was a top edge that was partially yellow, partially black which was holding the steering knob, but I built it slightly differently with more clear space for ergonomy. There are few parts I couldn't get in specific colors that would make it more obvious, like for example here the black thin liftarms within the frames should be dark grey to represent the battery cover, but I couldn't find it locally in this color. Also I couldn't get enough trans orange 1x1 tiles so there's a one imperfection in that top trans orange light with a 1x2 tile instead, and for some reason I couldn't get red liftrams 7L for the lever under the flatbed at the time I was placing orders. I hope the design is what counts because those are just small part sourcing issues.
  23. I finally managed some time to shoot and clean photos for the entry: Full Size Photo Original Model Full Size Photo Original Model Full Size Photo Original Model Full Size Photo Also updated the opening post with them. Now I need to put together a showcase video before I'll be able to submit the contest entry. I'm short on free time to build recently so I don't want to start figuring out whole thing from scratch, and I would need to, really. The first problem is that if I were to add second linear actuator, then the input for both linear actuators need to be handled and it would change the construction back to what I initially planned with two knobs where the access panel for gearbox switch is in the original model, and this is a place where turning the knob is not really ergonomic as well as the access panel tilting causes additional significant complications because it needs a clearance on the inside, which affects rigidity of the frame. It would be doable, but it would be a messy build and in the end using the knobs would be annoyingly non-ergonomic. The second problem is that small linear actuator has barely any extension on its own, it's just 3 studs. This is visible on my gif on the first page where I actually tested it. It's enough to open up the tray, but not enough to actually tow a car with clearance like in the original model - note that in original model when the tow bar end starts rotating the whole thing is still moving laterally out. It's just that even if I solved the problem of how to make it turn those 180 degrees back and forth, I would still have two big problems to solve here and I feel like both are not doable at the same time. I could have more room internally if I cheated and used 1 stud wide wheels, but the original model had wide ones, so the ones that I picked are matching. But then it'd again get a bit complicated with steering at the front because of gear rack size requirement.
  24. Yeah, angling doesn't really help much. Also you need to start building it physically, you can easily build something in Studio that makes sense in 3D model, but isn't working in real life.
  25. I've built a fake engine at this scale this way: There is still some travel on those fake pistons in this kind of construction.