gyenesvi

So what's your definition of a good MOC? What makes them better than some official sets? A few things I could think of is maximizing the functionality put into the model at the given scale, and the realism of that functionality being a fairly good looking (maybe scale) representation of something realistic (does not necessarily have to be a licensed model) For me, these two points are some common shortcomings of official sets mainly due to cost saving I think. It is understandable that they need to produce smaller / cheaper / simpler models as well to cater for younger kinds and beginners. But I don't really fancy when they make something empty / missing functionality (42126 rwd) or unrealistic in functionality (like 9398 and 42099 suspension, or the huge unrealistic supercar gearbox layouts), or when they pick an iconic real world model and build it on a too small scale to be able represent it properly (like 42122, both looks and functions). So for me a really interesting model is something that has realistic and enough functions put into the available space for the scale, but not too much crammed, while also being a good looking one given the possibilities of technic panels, something like 42128.

I just realized that it was the planetary hub that you had to cut to make this work. I wish Lego would have made that hub that way, it becomes so hard to use as a steered hub because of that extra bit being in the way all the time. That's what happens when they want to make a part usable for multiple purposes; it becomes much less useful for its original purpose. At least with the Audi hub, they made it better. The truck looks nice, especially the cab, I'm not a fan of big boxy stuff, so I prefer it without the rear end :) On the other hand, I don't like the front axle construction, because of the use of the ball joint causing negative caster. Did you consider building a proper 4-link suspension for the front? And moving the servo off the axle through a linkage? At this large scale, it should be possible. Do you want 11 stud wide axles (between steering pivots)? I don't think that's possible with current parts, but the 13 wide you have here can be made fairly stable (while having okay ground clearance like the one in this post), you just need to get rid of that servo on there, move the cross bracing on the top closer to the center, and maybe turn it into a proper 4-link suspension :) Something like I used in this build.

I totally agree with this. Though quite a few of those questionable techniques can be spotted by looking only, very few people do. Most often people just comment "it looks good" without thinking much about the functionality. I sometimes kind of await such questions when I present a MOC and I know that there are some weak points in it, but rarely get those questions. A bit relieving, a bit sad at the same time :) Exactly my thoughts.

Since I often ramble in various threads about certain parts not being available in lego technic, for a while I have been thinking about starting this thread, kind of a collection of hypothetical parts that we'd like if they existed. Since we are talking about parts that would mostly exist virtually for now, the purpose of the thread can mainly be coming up with ideas in virtual builds, seeing the possibilities that could potentially be achieved with lego technic, how far the system could be pushed. Now the goal is not to go too far and dream about highly specialized parts that would solve one specific need and could only be used in very restricted circumstances. On the contrary, I have many part ideas in mind that would be fairly generic with many potential use cases, and would fit nicely into the technic system. In other words, they could one day be actually produced by TLG. Indeed, my secret dream is that some day somebody from TLG would wander here, see some of the ideas along with their potential benefits in builds and say, hey, let's produce this one . But even if that does not happen, we can exchange interesting building ideas, and maybe we can manufacture some of our part ideas through 3D printing or just cutting and glueing existing parts. To keep things organized here, so that the parts would be easy to browse, this first post could be used as a catalog, which I would keep editing, while all other posts could be used for discussion and proposal of new part ideas. Proposing a part idea could be done by posting some renders of it, either made with Studio Part Designer or with any CAD program. But eventually it would be great to have .part files linked to the catalog items as well so that people can download them and use them in virtual builds (for example coming up with more use cases). Also, it would be great to be able to link the use cases to the parts as well somehow. Not sure if it is possible to reference one post from another post here. @Jim and @Milan, any tips about how to keep things organized? Catalog of Parts Each of these groups link to an .io file containing these parts from which the renders were made, and also the separate part files. The images link to higher resolution versions. Liftarms and Thin Liftarms, missing sizes up to 8L (full: 4L, 6L, 8L, thin: 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L, 8L) Liftarms with Alternating Holes (7L already exists, but not yet included in Studio) (2L, 3L, 4L, 5L, 6L ,7L, 8L, 13L) L-Shaped Liftarms and O-Frames, full and thin versions (full L-beams: 2x2, 2x3, 3x4, thin L-beams: 2x2, 2x3, 3x4, thin O-frames: 3x3, 3x4, 3x5) Beams with Pins at Both Ends, (Cada has them) would be quite useful for building arbitrary sized frames (2L, 3L, 5L, 7L). Pins and Axles, mainly longer (sometimes shorter) versions of existing ones. Links with Towball Sockets, without end stops to make them usable on both sides (3L, 4L, 5L, 7L, 8L, 9L). Links with Towball Sockets Perpendicular, without end stops to make them usable on both sides (3L, 4L, 5L, 6L, 7L, 8L, 9L). Links with Pinhole Ends, in odd lengths (5L, 7L, 9L, 11L, 13L) Liftarms and Connectors with Towball Sockets, short lengths and connector style (liftarms: 2L, 3L, 4L, L-connectors: thin, wide) Wheel hubs, for smaller / tighter driven and steered axles (towballs with CV-joint, towballs with 3-pin connector, pinholes with 3-pin connector, portal) CV Joints and Universal Joints, with axles of various lengths. The universal joints might not be feasible due to too thin material. (U-joints: 2L, 3L, 2+2L, 2+3L, old type CV-joints: female 3L, male 2L, double male, new type CV-joints: female 2L, male 1.5L, male sliding 2L) Flat Panels, in systematically increasing sizes (rectangular 3x5, 3x9, 5x5, 5x7, 5x9, trapezoidal 5x7) Beams from the Alphabet (S, Z, T, H), various beam connectors (S5x10, S3x11, Z3x7, Z3x9, T3x5, H3x5) Connectors, variations on existing ones. Gears and Gear Racks, varying lengths and teeth counts (gear racks: 9L, 11L, clutch gears: 24T, 12T with pinhole, 12T with extender)

That's interesting insight, wonder how he put it together then (because I'm sure he did). I think it must be evenly spaced, because it is using a pulley wheel for the planet carrier, right @HorcikDesigns? The ring has 24T if I count correctly. Btw, I think the same construction would work with 4x 8T planet gears as well, I just tried and they would still be far from touching each other. However, there's no technic piece to carry 4 planet gears I think, the closest is this piece, that could carry 2 (unfortunately, there's no free spinning version of the 8T gear):

Yeah, that sometimes happens, so by that line of thought I'm expecting a proper sized technic Jeep Wrangler and a classic Land Rover :) I guess I'll have to wait a few years though.. Ferraris and Lambos seem to get duplicated more rapidly in technic nowadays. Nice catch for this set by the way. Interesting reference by TLG.

Sounds good :) Thought I can live without the pink accents and the print on the tires (would look good but ain't gonna happen I think). And finally TLG could start making fender pieces that are better fit for SUVs and off-roaders (instead of only sports cars), where the top does not curve too much (2 studs) inwards onto a low hood, because it has to continue straight up, and where the bottom may curve inwards. I think this could be done with a flat panel piece that has a wheel-arch cut in it, that accepts a fender flare (like on the Raptor) that protrudes a bit out of the flat wheel-arch panel. And the same wheel-arch could accept fender flares of various styles..

Thanks again! Yes, because then that becomes the path of least resistance. Yes, that's exactly the same general principle, but implemented with rotation instead of an LA.

I have a bit of a hard time interpreting the question of this thread. To me, the best MOCs are usually pushing the limits in ways that would not be acceptable in an official set, by cramming lots of stuff in using somewhat questionable techniques. So that by definition will not really be met by official sets. Instead what best official sets could do is provide clean solutions (by introducing new parts) to problems that could only be solved by such questionable techniques before. Now to me, the Zetros is a pretty bad example of that. It could have introduced new parts for building live axles in a more elegant way (for example the part that we are just discussing in the 'Technic parts that we would like to see' thread), but it did not really (except for the long CV joint, which also turned out too long I think). Instead they turned the Zetros into a giant gearbox with giant live axles. True that they did hard-coupled motors, that's a first (but not really an achievement). But that thing has basically non-articulating suspension, almost zero ground clearance, bad steering and is unplayably slow (that's the least of the problems though). On top of that, the gearbox switching is implemented with an M motor which does not have a rotary encoder, through a ton of gears and clutch in a very convoluted way. We could have just gotten a small angular motor in that set with a rotary encoder that could have been ideal and very useful for building gearboxes. But they spared that out of a 300 Euro set and dumped out all the not so useful M motors they had at stock. Also for me the looks are toyish, not really like a trial truck (just marketing). I don't think a good MOC would have these properties. If I view the set as a parts pack, then it's a good one though :) Or did you mean 'MOC-like' in a way that it over-complicates things because the right parts don't exist? Then, yes, the Zetros is like a MOC..

I love this; not only have some people built it already, but we also have crude building instructions for it before it hits the shelves! :D

Indeed, both variations would be useful, and actually both of them (and even more variations) have long been listed in the first post of this thread ;)

Thank you guys all for the praise. I'm really glad that you appreciate the mechanical aspect of it the most. Thanks a lot, really appreciate that! It's really simple. Think about it like this: it could do both actions at the same time; the bottom end of the LA wants to fold the arm, while the top end wants to lift the whole arm when being extended. While it could do both, it only does the one that requires less force. So first it folds, but when that gets blocked (after it's folded all the way), it starts to lift. When lowering, it is reversed, because then the lowering of the whole requires less force, and when that's blocked, the unfolding comes. Btw, I forgot that I wanted to add a zoomed in render of the steering linkage, I've inserted it above.

This is exactly what I'd find most useful for these hubs, looks great, and it's such a missing piece, and what's worst is that the Zetros had the chance to introduce something like it, but they instead made some super bulky axles.. That planetary reduction is also a nice design, what's the down-gearing ratio of that? I also like the buggy motor mounts, though that's a very specialized part.

I know the fenders are not, but I thought the 3x13 panels are, because Bricklink said so, but I guess they were only in the Osprey.. Though they are available in dark blue :)

I think in this case, the stop part would go into the pinhole of the 2x4 L beam on the top, so there would be no shortening of the axle if a 4L axle with stop would be used. Second, the other arm of the gripper is mounted on a 5L axle without stop, so its bottom end is exactly where a 4L axle would reach. So I don't get either why the asymmetry. If it works on one arm, it should work on the other as well. Or if they made the axle of one arm longer, why no make the other one longer as well using a 5.5 axle?

I can believe that it works in this application, but I think it's due to the circumstances: it's a light weight vehicle, there's not much down gearing after the motor, and the tires don't have much traction (it will never get stalled since it can easily spin the tires under itself). If it was a bigger/heavier build, 4-wheel drive, with large grippy tires, then I could easily imagine that gear connection skipping. But I could be wrong, just thinking that otherwise such gear meshes would work in other MOCs as well, but that's not the case (they typically have to be braced from both sides). The only thing I can think of why this may work in a more general setting as well is that this connection is at the very beginning of the drive-train, and if all the down-gearing is after this, then there may not be much stress on this one. Do you have some links to the motor/ESC you used? Are the motor mount holes 16mm apart? And what's that connector trick you use for the motor cables? Looks interesting!

Nice looking car, I like the shape, though it's a bit too many colors for me, I guess it's parts availability, but I think almost all black panels could be swapped out to DBG. Then it could even get closer to the real one.. The driveline is pretty interesting, those CV joints are cool idea. Are those rings half stud wide? Or a bit less? Curious how it will drive!

Exactly! Something like that is Number 1 on my wishlist of connectors! So much that it's on the first page of this thread, in the connectors section ;) Although I think it would often be more useful with axle holes, at least the perpendicular one. I don't even understand how Lego got away without it so long, I could use it so often. Here's the bunch of connectors again, the bottom one:

This. Wonder how many small kids even know the brand? It does not seem too meaningful to license such a model to me. I don't think that's a selling point for the parents of such kids either.. But this might be an explanation, though not sure I get how such license agreements would work. Would they agree that Lego has to release a certain number of licensed sets, or what?

Interesting solution, though wonder why not do it with a longer pin to be able to fix it at the other end of the pinion gear as well, i would assume that such a powerful thing needs to be fixed properly from both sides. Would it work with a 3L axle-pin? (they have differing inner diameters)

Oh, that door solution also puzzled me, I could not figure how they get the friction, but now I see, nice catch!

I do agree that some words may be a bit strong (I was also surprised to read "disgusting"). But different people react with different emotional charge to things, maybe he was disgusted, it's his right to be so, but he has to deal with that himself. But if all such expressions were moderated, that would also create a lot of unnecessary confrontation and policing atmosphere, so I think it's better not to expect such moderation but rather ignore the comment if we don't agree with it, or just say we don't agree with it without blaming the other person of anything, after all it's his opinion. Obviously, if comments would get really personal and use a lot of really strong language like swearing, that would have to be moderated. I think I've said enough, don't want to repeat myself, and sorry for getting off-topic.

How long has this been out as non-beta for both Android and iOS? I just realized it is out for iOS. Also, it is possible, that many users, like myself, are still using BC2 for the controller, and they will only move to Buwizz app once the controller support is out, and they will only be able to really test it out then. Unfortunately BC2 does not seem to develop further to incorporate this setting, so those who are using it still have the problem. So yeah, controller support would be good to have sooner than later.

Of course I predicted based on the previous occurrences that you would probably find it so, but as I wrote, that is your interpretation, not my intention, and I let that be your problem. Furthermore, I don't see how I would have dumped on my own point. You can have your own opinions as anyone else, I accept that. What you should not do is blaming other people for discomforting you with their opinions, as I do believe that is emotional manipulation (maybe sneaky is not the best word for that, I'm not a native speaker). And I haven't blamed you of insulting me. If anyone is dumping on their own point that's you; you advocate honesty and free opinions (just read that in another thread), but you in some cases take them as insult when they disagree with you.

I think it's not that simple. They'd have to check them for quality issues, make official instructions for them, which is still a significant amount of work, and I guess many C models we think are really cool would not meet their criteria. Also, many of the best C models are modeled after a real-world counterpart, and Lego could not release those officially without licensing.