Erik Leppen

Eurobricks Counts
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Erik Leppen

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
    <p> Technic and 10242 (yes I know that's a different theme)</p>

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Game development, roller coasters, mathematics, LEGO


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

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Erik Leppen

    General Part Discussion

    It looks like a photoshopped image. For example, the stud text is not parallel to the axes of symmetry of the axle. On a true Lego part, this would surely be aligned. (Also, it would be a horrible part to remove.) So my assumption is it's a "wish part" mock-up put together by a fan.
  2. Erik Leppen

    Which Steering Hub?

    This is the key. Your (dark gray) steering arms are 2x6, but the linkages connected to the gear-rack are 9L. This makes the cirular movements (while moving up and down) different, and the wheels will turn inwards or outwards (i.e. not parallel, when seen from above) when the arms are not horizontal. Fortunately, 6L steering links exist.;idColor=11#T=C&amp;C=11 As a side node, I personally often try to make the suspension arms approximately horizontal on average. Then, most of the movement range of ball-joints and CV joints (for driven axles) can be used for steering. Also I often try to keep suspension travel (= vertical distance between highest and lowest point) relatively little. Yours is 2.5 studs, which I would find quite a lot. The longer the travel, the stronger the springs you need to hold a certain weight. Also, you need somewhat larger wheel arches. But, this is personal taste. I think many builders use larger suspension travels than I do. By the way, I quite like the setup with the linear actuators. However, I didn't realize that they might run into "click" as per @brunojj1's remark. For my Chiron rebuild, I used a solution with worms and 24t gears. You need to beware of twisting axles though, and keep the worm as close as possible to the lever that holds the springs. (In brunojj's setup I'd personally worry about the 8t gears cracking or the dark-gray 8L axle twisting...)
  3. Erik Leppen

    Limited Technic Reviews

    Does it matter that a review comes out before the set? I'd hope not. Jim's reviews are good (the pictures, but also the text). Isn't that what matters? And, if reviews aren't allowed to be critical, then they lose their trustworthiness. I'd much rather have an honest review that is late, than a timely review whose truth is doubted. And I expect that most of us see it the same way. The question is: does TLC see it this way too? Is a critical review better for them than no review? Does them providing a set give them anything in return if the resulting review may end up being harsh? Does them providing the set influence how we see them, and therefore, how we review their sets? If they don't provide a set, may the review end up being even later, but harsher? I think those are questions only TLC and ambassadors can answer.
  4. Not sure if sarcastic or not, but I'd say it's doable if you have a good side-view image with not too much perspective. That said, much depends on your level of perfectionism, of course. I'd say it's better to build an imperfect car, learn from that and then start a second model with new knowledge, than spend endless time just looking for the right pictures. I've built lots of very ugly Lego cars in the past. Also @badmad, it is considered good practice on here to start a MOC/WIP topic only if you have something actually built (real or digital) that you can show. Even if it's just a frame or a module (suspension, gearbox, whatever). If it's only reference photos, there is little to see for us. For discussion, there's already a thread :)
  5. Erik Leppen

    Sorted by color finally finished!

    Actually the system by @ShaydDeGrai is quite similar to mine. As a child I sorted by color, later I sorted everything by type (colors mixed - I don't have such quantities), which I kept doing for years, but a few years ago I suddently thought "what are all orange pieces I have" and started going back to sorting by color, for things I use by color. Functional parts, such as snot bricks or Technic stuff, is still by type. One main reason for sorting by color for "outside/nonfunctional/shape" parts is that you can get "inspiration" from the variety of parts in a bin. Looking for a red piece in a type-sorted bin only works if you know which red piece you need. When I build in a color, I don't always know which parts I need. I search through the bin and stumble on interesting parts that give me ideas of how to build things. This only works for color-sorted mixed-type bins. So for example I have all my orange System parts divided into only 2 bins - "everything that's rectangular" (i.e. basic bricks, plates, tiles) and "all the rest". For basic colors I sort functional parts by type, because I need them by type (I need "part X" in "any color"), but I still have all slopes by color because I use them by color (I need "a variety of slopes in color X"). To add to that, I have found that - at least I - needed a few iterations of different sorting systems to even find out what works best for me.
  6. Erik Leppen

    How to start develop a supercar

    My advice would be to first just start building the car :) I sometimes do instructions for my models. It's quite time consuming, yes, but I find it rather enjoyable to do (indeed, @brunojj1 :P ), (although saying tghat, I still have a backlog of a few models that I want to do instructions for), except waiting for LPub3D to do all the rendering (could easily take 30 minutes for all steps of a 1:8 car model). Also, I don't go into depths to create "professional level" instructions. I just put the parts in a sensible order and use submodels. But I never use moving parts with arrows or parts "not yet in place" such as pins or axles that need to be pushed through later. I omit all that. I expect builders to "get" it. Same for strings and some other flexible elements. Those are the most time-consuming. I just skip that. (Fortunately I don't often do pneumatic models). But yeah. To do this at all, you first need a finished model. I'd work on that first :)
  7. Erik Leppen

    How to start develop a supercar

    My personal experience is that to test the functions, nothing beats the physical build. I use the digital build mostly for planning.
  8. Erik Leppen

    Instructions: Paper vs. Digital

    I have read through the discussion diagonally and wanted to mention a few things I feel have not been said up to now. 1. Some here present a false dichotomy between paper vs. digital. There is no "vs.". There is a thrid option: paper instructions sold separately. That way, the paper lovers can go paper, the screen lovers can go screen. Win win. (Of course, this new way would take time for people to get used to, and won't work for the whole world at once.) 2. There's also a false dichotomy between paper and pdf. Of course, if you go digital, then you can use the additional features this offers. That is, 3D instructions, animated instructions, automatic updates for new (one-set or two-set) models, and everything else that can be possible. I would also say that a good user-friendly dedicated animated 3D instructions app is harder to copy by bootleg companies than pdf files or printed stuff. As far as I can see, there's quite a list of arguments either way. Paper instructions cost resources (including shipping all that weight) (and are often used only once) Digital instructions cost electricity (including server costs) (and are often used only once) Paper reading is better for comprehension (it remains a question whether this holds for imagery as well) Digital reading gives access to new presentation mechanisms (point 2 above) (it remains a question whether this can ever be better than paper. Personally I expect that ink-based screens (e-reader-like) would eliminate the difference between screen and paper. For still-based instructions (pdf) color ink-based screens would be perfect. Paper instructions don't "distract". (I'd say "airplane mode", but whatever) Color differences can be harder to read from screen Paper won't ever be "unavailable"; while apps can go offline. (However, we can still read ancient file formats, so pdf won't go anywhere soon.) There's too much screen time in the world already On the other hand, paper instructions cost more physical space to store. Digital storage is practically endless nowadays. I'd prefer to get rid of all that paper. (And while we're at it, all the plastic bags as well.) Yes, I get it, Lego is literally plastic pieces, but these can be used for years so the cost : use ratio is very different.
  9. Erik Leppen

    How to start develop a supercar

    One suggestion that hasn't been mentioned yet, that may be obvious but maybe not: show your progress in a topic here on the forums. (Many people create a separate topic for each model they create.) That way, you can get feedback that's specific to your build. If you specify in your topic that you're still learning, the feedback on here is often very valuable. (Make sure the topic title starts with [WIP] to indicate it's a work-in-progress). Another thing I want to mention is, to get a sense of scale, what I do is find a picture of the original (often a side view), and use a drawing program (I use to draw a grid over the photo where every grid-cell is 1 stud. So measure the wheels in studs, say if they are 10 studs, then draw a 10 x 10 grid over the wheel on your photo and then extend the grid. From there you can get the height (measured in grid-cells, i.e. studs). If you have a frontview photo as well, you can use the height to find out the width of the model. Then count the grid-cells and build a very simple rectangular box that holds the wheels to get a sense of scale/size. Then you know what to work with. I guess this is a complicated version of what Sariels Scaler does automatically, but by doing it by hand I have the idea that I have more control over stuff. By the way, I do this even while I don't want to recreate an existing car, just to get realistic proportions. By the way, I also usually start with axles/suspension/steering/drive, then chassis, gearbox and seats/interior. But whatever approach you choose (all the advice above is super useful) the most important thing is: practice, and have fun doing so :) Start building something, show it on the forums, finish it (this is what new creators sometimes forget to do), evaluate it, learn from it, and use these lessons for future model(s). And all the while, enjoy the journey :)
  10. Erik Leppen

    42100 Liebherr R9800 Excavator

    Environment-wise, I always rather hate those paper instructions, to be honest. I only use them once, and from that moment on, they're waste. The question, of course, is what's actually worse: the download + electricity cost, or the paper + ink + extra shipped weight. But it feels rather wasteful to spend so much trees and ink on a book that's only used once. So personally, I really wouldn't mind to see them go all-digital on instructions. But this is probably an unpopular opinion. There's probably no solution that will keep everyone happy (including the general public). The best I could think of, is: sets are without paper instructions; these are sold separate, and physical stores give the option of borrowing instructions rather than buying them. Like a good old-fashoned library.
  11. Erik Leppen

    42100 Liebherr R9800 Excavator

    I noted on this in the other topic (the one about Sariels video) but I'd say, it is the lack of a physical controller. Using a smartphone means no tactile feedback, and this means you have to look at the controller all the time, instaed of focusing on the model. Given that, what more is it, then, compared to just playing a smartphone game with a digital excavator? (This is exaggerated, but you get the point.) In any case, it means you will have to switch your focus all the time between the controller and the model, which I expect to be very tiring. If you could connect a game controller to it, things will get tons more interesting. Especially if there would be a way to program the controller input. (I don't know if there are peeps from third party electronics who are doing just that?) The other big con, for me is: despite the huge novelty in electronic aspect, there's nothing new in mechanical aspect. Same problem as 8275, but 3x as expensive.
  12. The result of no tactile feedbcak is that to control the machine, you have to look at the controller, instead of at the machine. This means that playing with 42100 will involve a lot of screenwatching, and constantly having to switch your view between controller and machine. I expect this constant switching to be very tiring, much more than when you can constantly look at the machine and feel the controller. This is a problem the good-old PF remotes didn't have. I find this a major downside for Control+, playability-wise. I think this could be solved by creating a controller similar to those used by game-consoles, and then have the smartphone/tablet app act as an interface to programming the hub and controller (linking controller inputs to motor actions), with a pre-programmed setup for each official set.
  13. Thanks for making this super extensive video review. It seems to show most of the features. As for the set itself, I'm still torn between two thoughts. On one hand, it's absolutely amazing, such a large model that works so smoothly and with all those control options. That, and actually having load capacity, after all the complaints about some older sets that looked great in motion but couldn't lift much. On the other hand, it's still a white box on tracks and mechanically not very special. All the unique stuff is in the app and the electronic components, not in the model itself. Motors are directly coupled to functions, so I would way it's boring in the technical way, even though it's very insteresting in the technological way... So one thing I really don't get is how Sariel gives "building experience" max score. It looks like a very longwinded uninteresting build with mostly pins, panels and system bricks. All those details are nice, but they fill the set with more parts and make it more expensive, while getting less Technic for the theme. If I want to build system, I can get to literally any other theme. If I buy Technic, I don't want all the nonfunctional system bits. I get the feeling that half of this set is boxes and railings. If you extend the comparison to the previous RC excavator (8043), it's almost 4 times as many parts, for one extra function. I'd say that 8043 is the (much) more interesting set here. Achieving 6 RC functions in a small package with only 1200 parts and only medium motors, that's an achievement (and a joy to build!). Everyone can get 7 functions out of 4000 parts (and thousands of lines of code) like in this Liebherr. So, I'd say 42100 is impressive, but 8043 is a design marvel. I know what I prefer :) Oh well. It just seems the set is not for me, even though it seems to be for people like me. I just can't see myself spending 400 euros on the electric components, a few new LAs, clutches, 7x11 frames and other new stuff, plus 3800 other parts I already own too many of. Space-wise, it may be a better move to spend part of that 400 euros to just get the new parts, and have some money left to spend on the new parts in the 42110 Defender, including some cool olive green stuff. (By the way, the yellow 3x3 frame is an interesting, if slightly odd, recolor.)
  14. Erik Leppen

    42100 Liebherr R9800 Excavator

    Maybe they wanted to avoid 8t gears? I don't know. I'd say if you want to achieve 1:18, just use 8:40 and then 8:28. By the way, this is what I mean if I say a set is too big for what it does. It makes designers use their space inefficiently.
  15. Hmm. Everyone seems thrilled about this set. Super high ratings also in this review. I'm not sure yet. Visually the color is growing on me, and I really like the dark-tan interior, but I personally find all the boxes and extras just add a lot of fluff that I had rather not seen. Also I can't get over those super ugly fender panels. I somehow still have the feeling that for 2500 parts it's not very function-rich. Even given the neat gearbox. Also, it doesn't do very new things. But maybe I shouldn't expect this, after so many years of Technic. Also, the winch ontrols hdiden under the hood is weird, and for me the tiny engine looks a bit dumb. I'd rather see a 42043 solution with the standard engine parts that may be too large, but do work like actual engines. (Oh well. In a few years, we don't have combustion engines anymore anyway.) It's good to see decent suspension, for once. It has a few interesting parts, but in very low quantities (7x11 frame, blue gear, orange selector, yellow extender). The only interesting thing for me inventory-wise is the olive green parts. It remains to be seen how expensive those will be to bricklink or obtain otherwise... Edit: in any case, thanks for making this extensive review.