Eurobricks Knights
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SaperPL

  1. @Jim Two questions:

    1. Does wheels needing to drive the vehicle means they need to be douching the floor for driving or can they be used in the drive system in some other rotary action to propel the vehicle? For example used as clutch in drive system, used as drive sprocket in a tank, used to transfer rotation input to some walking system?
    2. Will taking out springs out of shock absorbers be treated as part modifying?

  2. 1 hour ago, allanp said:

    Real truck wheels are so deep they can be bolted back to back without any spacers and still have a gap between the tyres. Don't know why they never make truck wheels like this in Lego.

    That's also why I'm asking about rims like that.

    36 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

    You never want the pivot point directly in center, because than the wheel can become unstable. A good analogy is your head and neck support, your head is supported off center and is much more stable and if it were supproted in dead centre and wobble in all directions.

    But we're talking about toys/models and we're having problems with how this affects wheel arches. Also you may be right when it comes to something that is loose, but here we have a wheel that the vehicle's weight is pressing onto the ground. And I don't remember experiencing any problematic wobbliness with my wheel rims, while I often do have some wobbliness with standard Lego pieces while steering anyway due to some leeway in the parts themselves, so I'd say in this case sitting right in the center might be helping against the problem at slow speeds for more static manual model, while you might be right at it causing some issues at the higher speeds.

  3. 5 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

    There are deeper rims like the ones that came in the Creator Mustang. But at such small scales, there are big issues managing to fit a steering arm inside, while allowing for a good steering angle and most importantly keeping slack low.

    Yeah, I know about those issues, but this is still doable if you don't expect to have independent suspension on this wheel. I've made a prototype of this ages ago here: so it can be done if Lego would want to do it.

    Creator expert mustang rim is letting the pivot point inside, but it's still offset from the centre by half stud so the pivot is not perfect. Also it doesn't fit the look of a truck wheel. For a licensed truck, they could've try to add new piece types, but I guess it wasn't critical issue for the set.

  4. Looking at this abomination, I think it could make more sense if they would do something like make a hub with one servo motor and connectors for motors and batteries (plural) in a way that the battery has the form factor of a large motor. For an RC car it could be like putting two batteries for better power output - one per drive motor, or something like that, and better distributing the batteries in smaller form factor.

    But this... this needs to go, don't buy it - vote with your wallets ;D

  5. 19 hours ago, mdemerchant said:

    I would also speculate that Cada doesn't compensate their MOC designers as the same level as Lego does but I hope I'm wrong since you're all doing a fantastic job.

    Well, when it comes to either companies having a process of acquiring model ideas/submissions, at least CADA doesn't hold the rights to the model and then not do it even when reaching 10K supports on the platform, to only release the model based on the idea one year later... 

    19 hours ago, mdemerchant said:

    But in terms of just comparing the lineup of who has the nicer technic sets, Cada clearly has hands down better models. 

    Better for us AFOLs, but probably Lego knows what they are doing in context of accessibility for younger audiences.

  6. 1 minute ago, Thirdwigg said:

    Generally, it's because I don't add the links, and have to add them later. You tend to find the error before I get to it.

    I think you're loosing a lot of traffic by not adding working links, especially when it comes to people watching your videos on the phone because it's cumbersome few clicks to manually go to a website and find your MOC there.

    My trick for my laziness when it comes to adding the link is that rebrickable is still accepting shortening links to just MOC number by removing everything after it like this: -> and this is short enough for youtube to not cut it away and optimise as it sometimes does.


    Anyway, good model, I have to get some of those tyres and try making something with them as well, because I keep seeing those in really cool small sized models. And also experiment with those rubber pieces you used for suspension, and btw I still need to try building the chassis from your TC20 model with those, gotta see this trick with flexible chassis IRL :)

  7. Cool little model. I'm curious though, as I didn't follow your progress on this one - did you perhaps try doing this as an alt model for the john deere tractor, or was being close to your tractor scale main focus right away?

    Also curious - what's up with your links to your rebricable MOCs under your videos? Is there a reason why you always have something wrong with them? I remember that youtube did sometimes cut some links off for me, but not for rebrickable.

  8. 2 minutes ago, Lego Tom said:

    Actually looks like a pretty viable solution.

    I've written my concerns about it above. Note that apart from the servos here, there's still need to fit motors and figure out how to connect it to a 4-motor hub. I'm not sure if its worth it, since at this point it's an overcomplication of things that behave similarly to motors connected directly with proportional control and don't behave like differential steering with locked output proportion at all. And with two servos, I'd have to drop one of the turret functions and not having gun elevation in a model of this size would be really weird.

  9. @Ryokeen I was thinking about something like this, but I'm not so keen on having that thin liftarm close to the gears because there's a potential that the gear shifter will push it against the gear teeth if the driving ring is blocked against the gear. Should work most of the time, but it might be touching the gear.

    I'm leaning towards a single servo mechanism as best compromise, just need to figure out the motor layouts to be solid and don't take up too much of space while having driving axle sent to the back of the whole chassis.

  10. I got stuck on this for a bit longer than expected and I'm not sure which way to go with the steering mechanism.

    The problem is, that the last iteration of the mechanism works great until I put a lot of weight on it, at which point the path of least resistant when trying to steer is to spin the motor that is not driven at the time instead of it working as a break and thus one side being slower.

    There's various things I'd like to achieve here, but at this scale I can't achieve all of them:

    • make the steering with two sticks and not one stick is gas and one is servo
    • make the steering work on the same principle as the actual Sherman steering
    • make the steering behave similarly to actual Sherman steering

    The potential solutions and their drawbacks:

    • single servo differential steering through connection at specified ratio outside of the differential - one stick for steering, not gradual steering angle, configuration is kind of weird when it comes to passing the drive input to the fake engine at the back.
    • dual servo with two gearboxes for steering of each side - should behave like its supposed to, but it's not a differential steering anymore, it's tricky to reinforce and is pretty long because of two servos placement.
    • the actual Sherman-like differential steering that had it's own separate video, but is really huge and it would mean either making the whole model bigger which I don't want to do, or designing quite a few 3d printed elements to shrink differential.

    The twin gearbox approach would work really well with gradual steering on each stick, but it also means that drive motor(s) need to go somewhere and they would take input from the feature for turret, so I wouldn't have gun elevation anymore. Ideally I would have the motors driven off a battery box, but for that, I'd have to have gearbox disconnect drive output from the drive motors, and then it'd be weird that neutral is in the middle of the stick.


    On top of that, it's kind of hard to figure out how to reinforce the orange shifters location so they won't slide while also they won't touch the reinforcing elements or the reinforcing elements wont collide with gears near them


    The single servo steering is the one from this video:

    Which I think is the most reliable approach, but it's a bit annoying that it's controlled with a single stick. I dropped that approach earlier because it felt like it requires a lot of space, but I increased the size of the chassis significantly from that prototype already and also reworked the turret mechanism multiple times, so It might be the best bet.

    Still, I'm not 100% sure if I should go this way, or is there a better approach, that's not just going yolo with two drive motors connected directly, which I don't really like, but at the same time it would allow for a cleaner, simpler build. But at the same time, with current weight of the model, the slight difference between motors or how to power is supplied from the hub will mean it won't drive perfectly straight.

  11. 23 hours ago, Maaboo the Witch said:

    I'm sorry, but if we don't get excited about a bulldozer that you can hold in your palm, then we have failed as a society. :sadnew:

    Seriously though, a set doesn't have to be big to be great. And it's probably one of the few sets that's gonna have a B-model.

    $11 set might be too smal to get many people excited, you have to really have some interesting build with not a lot of pieces for it to be exciting.

    I think that optimal size for a small set is something around 350 pieces like john deere tractor with trailer and if we were to get such non-branded $20~ish sets that are slightly more polished on the looks than the $11 sets, but still having functionality, it'd be great.

    Even more awesome it would be if lego would focus on a single scale matching the car transporter scale and few last supercars like senna/bolide/tecnica and started releasing various sets in the matching scale. We have some of them in similar if not the same scale, like the tow truck and few others, but it'd be great if they made it as a series similar to how speed champions are handled, because without it, "investing" into a collection at specific scale may be too risky if they might just change the scale next year.