Eurobricks Counts
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Lipko

  • Birthday 06/13/1985

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)

Profile Information

  • Gender


  • Country
  • Special Tags 1
  • Special Tags 2
  • Special Tags 3
  • Special Tags 4

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Uploaded.
  2. Hi, thanks for the interest! I have a nearlyfinished LDD, I'll try to upload it on my brickshelf today or tomorrow. I didn't bother finishing it, because I thought the model is a bit flimsy (especially the tail) to my standards, but after seeing the new official heli model reviews, I think my model isn't any flimsier that that. If you like (and I would be very thankful!), you could finish the LDD from the photos (so we could add it to bricklink EDIT: rebrickable). I'll be back as soon as I can, though I have very little time for anything nowadays. BTW as far as I can remember, the propeller isn't geared up anywhere. The speed is due to the fact that it's operated by a 2L connector which you can "nipple" :) no habla englis
  3. Yes, but this error makes this part pretty much impossible to use in linkage mechanisms.
  4. We have Metod kitchen for 1.5 years now and the drawers work smoothly even if significant weight is put inside them. I guess kitchen stuff is heavier than a bulk of Lego parts, so they should be fine for Lego too.
  5. I agree with this. And I also admit is that my comments are partly driven by jealousy. I was the guy who spent the 3 months on refining the build, the instructions etc. and who didn't lower his personal standards (for example the model should be sturdy enough to be playable without carefullness). The looks of my models were okay but not that spectacular. And than the big boom came in the MOC community with all the awesome looking flashy models I just couldn't compete with. Because I couldn't lower my standards. Partly because I couldn't afford to actually try those builds so I thought those MOCs were really magic I will never be able to design anything close to it. And party because of simple stubbornness. The very one-sided hype about those models didn't help that delusion I had. Then I realized that in most cases those hyped models were actually lacking the quality I strived for (and yup, official sets too) and often their "selling points" were actually achieved by cutting corners (not literally), but it was too late, life intervened. And because of that delusion, I never got pass the medicore desinger level (I still don't get that pro tag at my avatar) and never got to know what I would really be capable of. So that way my story.
  6. I'm looking only at the models which are made of the same standard parts with simple processes that doesn't require any special tools (there is free and good quality software for hobbyists too) or skills to design and assemble. So multi-billionairity doesn't have much effect on this. Team of designers? Sure, more eyes see more stuff. Free time? I think only the time part (actual work hours) is relevant, because it's spent on the same thing. So at the end, I don't see a huge advantage for official designers apart from introducing new parts every now and then. The quality issues are usually not related to new parts. Also I'm looking at forums and review videos. The quantity of selled sets/instruction doesn't have much effect. What I wanted to say that the double standard is this: we complain that official sets value looks much more than function and quality, yet we don't complain about it in case of MOCs. And I admit, it's much-much easier to afford having official sets than MOCs, so that explains why there are so few MOC reviews and too small number of samples will mean imprecise results.
  7. Hmm, interesting to see. In case of and official model, we would whine a lot about these issues. Double standard.
  8. I think the problem with that setup is that the T beam is not fully constrained, so it's possible that it can be inserted with slight misalignment or can go off during play. That's why I usually try to avoid such situations. But there's a much worse thing going on in that mock-up: the L beam. Only fixed by one friction pin (so not fully constrained by the structure, but constrained by the rotating axles). Also the piece behind the shorter arm of the L beam will try to separate from the other parts (only friction axle and two frictionless pins will hold the piece). So the L beam and that part will try to shear the rotating axles on the left. Depending on space constrains, I would have put the L beam one stud to the left and fix that connector part from the left side with two hole-pin parts. Edit: should be tested To sum it up: if you have a rotating axle, avoid having holes that are too close to each other on parts that are not fully fixed (fully fixed: friction pin or form-locking solutions) together.
  9. I'm not sold on the overall shape and style at all, but all those new parts, especially the panels!
  10. Wow I didn't even know about these new gears...
  11. Parts-wise I think the direction is good, it's almost like they are actually listening to AFOLs. Sets-wise, I don't know. I haven't bought sets since years, but from reviews I see some not very good tendencies. Like faulty/non-working out-of-the-box solutions, some dirty solutions (it's like they don't care about part-count optimizing any more and settle at okay-ish solutions, like beam stacking for example). But the quality is still very high, just not as high as it's used to be. Comparing with MOCs, it's pretty hard to judge since I cannot afford to build many NMOCs, and reviews tend to be very biased and "cautious". The one MOC I built and the others I looked deeper into were somewhat disappointing. The building quality (structure, playability, reliability and building experience) is only at the level of TLG set quality in case of only a few MOCs (okay, I'm not very active in the last few years).
  12. Well, I don't fully agree with starting small. Small builds can be tricky, less revarding if it doesn't turn out as good as you hoped, so I'd suggest start with medium scale models. Easier to add functions that would be very-very tricky to include in a small model.
  13. Maybe I misunderstood, but some things you say are not precise. "Clicking" comes from the fact that the material has some flexibility and theoretically perfect meshing is only possible under a cetrain torque/revolution, so the teeth may get in contact suddenly under different conditions. The helical profile is only there for eliminating the clicking (the noise and the vibration), otherwise it's more or less same as a spur gear (it's like palcing infinitely thin spur gears next to each other with an infinitely small accumulating angle difference). The radial and tangential component of the contant force is the same (the force components on the gear plane), so the necerssary radial bracing of the bearing is exatly the same! The same torque can only be transferred with the same forces on the gear plane (if the tooth have the same shape or "angle of action", the line you see on the animation). But with helical gears, you have to brace for axial forces too. To eliminate the extra axial load, double helical gears are often used. But again, from the bearing point of view: helical gears offer no advantage over spur gears apart from no vibration. But maybe I do misuderstood something, as you seem to imply that helical gears are something new, yet pretty much all georboxes use helical gears, only the first and sometimes the reverse gear is spur gear (hence the typical sound when you back the car), but it's due to the fact that those are switched with the gear sliding on the axle, not by cluthes. I guess the reason is their small diameter which couldn't house a clutch/synchron-grear.
  14. Option three: incorporate the gap into the design, like in some recent hypercars.
  15. Me-time at a proper computer is an unobtainable luxury for me.