Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
  • Which LEGO set did you recently purchase or build?

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Technic MOCs, off-roaders, construction machines, remote controlled vehicles.


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for the tests, interesting conclusion. Out of curiosity, and also for designing future MOCs, it would still be good to understand those cases for which the reverse movement is not effective enough..
  2. @Zerobricks, the BuWizz 3 seems to have gone out of stock, I can't order it. Does this mean that I won't be able to order it with the current price?
  3. This sounds interesting, but I am not sure I fully understand how it works. Is the suspension still independent, but the differential is floating with the axle that is straight, and to follow the up-down movement of the wheel, the axle can tilt because of the ball joint? Can you shoot a picture from the underside maybe?
  4. I meant backwards relative to the last direction of the motor (I guess @Gimmick meant the same), that should release the tension in all cases. Seems easy to test a few cases manually.
  5. This is what I thought too. @kbalage, are you planning to test it with the PU app too? It would be nice to see what happens if you implement manual switching, without releasing the tension. And the same thing with the slight backwards rotation before the switch.
  6. Hmm, that's a weird solution.. Not sure I understand what the 45 dergee rotation does, and why it's done at the same time as the shaking. And why the 45 rotation is undone before switching again.. Just to understand the problem clearly, is it that the driving ring could be tightly engaged with the clutch gear, and it would be hard to move the driving ring out of the clutch gear? In that case the 45 degree rotation happening in the beginning does not make sense to me. Or do you mean other parts of the driveline, such as tension around the LAs?
  7. I don't think there's a problem with the concept, I do believe it could be much better, kind of expecting switching time under 1 second. The Volvo hauler was that fast if I remember well, and it's the same thing, isn't it? At least I don't see any difference, and the L motor can be positioned fast and accurately. Furthermore, the simultaneous operation of functions should simply be disabled, the other buttons could be faded out, so that you see that you cannot press them while another function is being operated.
  8. Been waiting for that video, thanks :) The controls do look complicated, but maybe it's like the real thing. However, I am disappointed by the gearbox switching, 4 seconds is dead slow, I'd guess the hardware can do it faster, let's hope it's just a software thing and gets better with the final release..
  9. I think it does not matter for those applications above, as it is fixed in both planes since neither the suspension, nor the steering is implemented through that connection; steering is taken care of the joint above it, suspension by the floating axle into which it is built into. However, it's good to know, that means it would not work for my application, because I wanted to steer through it..
  10. In the meantime, Zetros's little brother trial Unimog was born :) Thanks for the inspirations @dpi2000 and @Thirdwigg, feedback is welcome. Shorter wheelbase, softer suspension, larger articulation, more ground clearance, 2-speed gearbox, spinning fan, no differentials - no need to lock them :) More pictures on Bricksafe. Working on instructions. @Timorzelorzworz, what I am using at the moment in Studio is a scaled-down version of the large tractor tire, I made it in Studio part designer. It's not perfect, as the thread count does not match, but still much better than balloon tires. I guess you are using LDD, but I can share the .part file, is that something you could use? Does anybody know if the new parts are also available in Studio? I checked @Philo's page and did not find anything yet.
  11. Thanks, so if I order one now, would that already come with the new batch of connectors or not yet?
  12. This is really interesting, as I just had an idea (posted in Efferman's thread that includes another custom part as well) that would require a male CV connector with a 2L axle, almost what you discovered here. Imagine a planetary hub at the end: It's too bad that it does not go all the way into the hub part, as this use case would require that, I guess this would not fly, the cross connector would be too close, right? I don't have the old CV's female part to test (just ordered a few). How is the steering angle with that mate with respect to the standard one? The axle looks really promising by the way.
  13. I do like the part itself though, it doesn't look as off as I thought it would, thanks! I will play around with it a bit it Studio.
  14. Thanks for the info. So these seem like software issues that can be fixed. What's with the port not working issue? Did you manage to replicate/debug that? Is that possibly a HW issue? BTW, can the firmware be updated on a BuWizz? Is the application capable of doing so if needed in the future?
  15. I am hoping for that too, although I am a bit discouraged by the comment on that small angular motor's description on that says "ideal for applications that require _low_ torque", or something like that. It could still work for smaller builds, but may be weak for larger ones designed for rough terrain (like rock crawlers), those do require some torque to steer properly. But I also hope they will arrive in technic sets as well (was kind of hoping that the Zetros would include something like that for the diff locker). As for the original question, I think the L motors are the most versatile (useful for steering as well, easier to build with), so sets with those may be better for a start.