Sariel

I'm honestly baffled by this whole tone thing. I'm making simple, calm statements, making some observations, without offensive language or insults. That the proportions are off is such a statement. Yet for some reason it creates a total outrage here. To sum what happened exactly: ME: The real crane looks different and has different proportions. I have a problem with its authenticity, but I like it otherwise. THE FORUM: You are being disrespectful, offensive and using bad tone of voice, how dare you! That's totally not an overreaction showing how EB really has a massive problem with criticism. Totally. See, I never said anything offensive or insulted the builder, I simply pointed out some obvious differences, but judging by reactions of some people here, I must have at least murdered half of his family, desecrated his religion and done some other terrible things. Face it EB: you can't handle criticism at all. Shouting your outrage at me just seems like a poor attempt at censorship, and it's really not going to make this crane look any more authentic. Not to mention how nonsensical the whole situation is: you are now more focused on a single comment about this model than on the model itself. I'd like to think that this is unrelated. Again, it baffles me why simple, logical, calmly presented observations are being read as bashing or blasting someone. I didn't even use an exclamation mark anywhere, cool it people. As for the stuff I deal with, yeah, I almost got death threats when I launched a fundraiser for a 360 camera. The reason? The fact that I'm getting review sets from LEGO. Also, some people start conversation by calling me a d*ck simply because I dare to publish a model without providing instructions. That instructions somehow don't just magically appear out of thin air but require weeks and months of work, never occurs to them. But that's my own private bag of fun and I'd like to think I'm managing to keep it separate from what's going on here.

I'm enjoying this thread, really. First, I've learned that saying that two different objects look different is disrespectful and somehow qualifies as bashing, now it somehow has to do with money and marketing. All of this because of one little comment saying "the real thing looks different". Totally worth all these pages and threads guys, really.

Because it wasn't a comparison and it wasn't an analogy? I have specifically called it "another example" of the looks problem, not comparison. Also, by your own argument, shouldn't you acknowledge the amount of effort someone put into that "orange thing"?

I've simply pointed out that it looks very different from how the real crane looks. And I've said a number of nice things about the model on top of that. How is that bashing, really?

I think the point in the original case is that the builder pretty much declares that he doesn't care about the look of his model because somehow only functions matter. Which, pardon me, just sounds like a lazy excuse. Is it a crane? Yes. Does it work? Sure. Does it look like the Liebherr 1060? Not at all, unless I poke my eyes out. That's one problem, another one is that anyone offering any criticism is automatically branded as an evil and hostile person. Consider that M_Longer's and mine argument was simply that the real crane you're naming your model after looks quite different - yet this simple fact, obvious to anyone with a working pair of eyes, was enough to unleash several pages and two topics of discussion. Damn, I wish really good models got that much attention! Something is rotten in the state of Denmark when high-level MOCs only ever get a few comments, but start a WIP topic with nothing but two sentences or show something that looks very wrong, and you have almost the whole forum's attention. Consider this: what if I publish a red car but claim that it's yellow? If you tell me it's not yellow, I can use exactly the same arguments that were made in our crane builder's defense: it's yellow enough for me, I have limited supplies, the color doesn't really matter because I consider it yellow anyway. It may sound funny, but if you give it a thought, it's exactly the same situation. Plus, you'll be the bad guy for telling me that it's red. Bottomline: you're essentially saying that looks are a matter of opinion. I respectfully disagree.

No, no, that's criticism! We don't allow that here! ;)

I believe it's more about "let's try to be fitter". Look, LEGO models come in all level skills and that is fine. But there is a level of difference between a Lego model and the real thing it was supposedly based on that is just ridiculous, and I don't see how turning a blind eye helps the builder here. EB clearly has a problem with criticism, simply suggesting that something could have been done better is often taken as offensive. Is praise the only thing allowed on EB, and how does that motivate the builder to try harder? By the way, I'm seeing a lot of blurry photos at EB, but honestly, at this point I'm afraid of suggesting that there are these things called tripods because that would probably be too offensive. For the record: I like the crane. It's way better that the cranes I used to build a couple of years ago. But it is not a convincing model of the Liebherr 1060, no matter how hard you wish it to be.

Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you're trying to call an apple a banana and everyone with a pair of eyes can see it is nowhere near being a banana. I understand you had limitations while building your model, but again, why claim that it's a model of a very specific crane if it looks nothing like it? You mean that if it's Technic, it doesn't matter how it looks? Well, that's something new to the entire Technic team and 99% of the builders here. Maybe you just didn't try hard enough? As it happens, I have started by building cranes very similar to yours. More: I guess they looked worse than yours. And because of that I just called them "mobile crane this" or "mobile crane that", and I didn't claim that it's a model of a very specific real crane just because some of the functions were the same. OK, so basically any LEGO model with 6 wheels can be named Liebherr 1060 because it's a popular brand, is that what you're saying? Here, let me give you another example of trying to call an apple a banana: This little model is supposed to be Lamborghini Aventador, which looks like that in reality: Do you see the problem here?

But that's a working Technic model, System pieces or not. I don't know what this model's author claimed, nor don't care, I'm not familiar with how he presented it but I think it's irrelevant here. Sorry for being harsh, but a person can only take so much of this "everything is awesome" attitude that is so prevalent here. It's cool to be nice, but what's the point of closing your eyes to obvious flaws? You're not helping the OP improve by pretending his creation is flawless and there's nothing to improve in it. But sometimes it seems like the only appropriate reaction here is praise or shutting up.

Mine is even simpler: if you don't have the resources for a model, don't call it a model. By your logic I could put two wheels together, connect them with a beam or two and call it e.g. a Ducati 900SS motorbike, because hey, it has some functions of the real bike and maybe I just didn't have the supply of parts to make the body or anything else. Seriously, the OP did not improvise "some" things. More like all of them. Was the limited supply of parts stopping him from getting the proportions even remotely right?

Thanks, but two would not get me the same result. I know because I've used two in my Ford GT40 model of a very similar size and weight, and as you can see it's clearly much less agile than the Porsche is: As for the front tires, the real Porsche's front tires are about 10% smaller than the front ones, they are definitely not the same size and I didn't want to overlook that difference. In my model, the front tires are indeed undersized for reasons explained at my website: first, the front benders being much thicker than in the real car, which means that if I wanted to keep the proportions of the front benders intact, I had to make the front tires smaller, and second, I had limited choice of tires because I wanted a tire with rounded profile in front, not a flat-profiled one, and that has limited my options e.g. eliminating this wheel: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=44772c01

Respectfully, you're starting to bend the fabric of reality here. This is a LEGO model that looks quite similar to a Liebherr crane: THIS is not: I understand that the form can be ignored to some degree, but if your crane looks NOTHING like the real thing, if literally every single proportion is off, then what's the point of calling it a Leibherr 1060 model? Just call it "my crane" and everyone will be happy.

It's bound to look bad after Brunojj1's mind-blowing McLaren P1, but oh well: Photos and reading: http://sariel.pl/2018/08/1970-porsche-917k/

It's not a problem, no. As for connections, this isn't what I was talking about. You're showing bottom-to-bottom connections and I'm talking about side-to-side. How are these going to stay together if they're not connected?

I like the idea but I don't think the front part of the hull with white and red stripes will stay together. All these white bricks and plates aren't connected to red bricks and plates, there's nothing holding them together, they're just sitting next to each other, which is precisely why I didn't use separate colors in my model. How are you going to solve this?

Masterpiece, as usual from you. Makes me wish really hard this was TLG's official successor to the Chiron. It doesn't hurt to read the first post. "Wheels are from #42056 set and painted in silver color."

Aaaaand the 42079, named Heavy Duty Forklift for reasons unknown (it's a regular forklift), also added to the first post:

It surely is a personal preference, to me the 42082 is just too riddled with pin holes while 42080 looks pretty smooth.

Yes, it is locked then.

Here they are: 42082 Rough Terrain Crane 42081 Volvo Concept Wheel Loader ZEUX 42080 Forest Machine 42079 Heavy Duty Forklift

Sorry for criticizing, but the proportions look way off. See the pic below, your model - when viewed from a side - appears to be considerably too tall, too short, and with significantly too small wheels. I would recommend starting by finding a blueprint of the real bike, and then using this: http://scaler.sariel.pl/

It's cool, but I wish it had a single driveshaft, like the real truck, not two driveshafts.

Sorry, I only have one and it's buried deep inside a MOC.

As I pointed out when the red diff was first released, there is a subtle difference:

Here's my 4-speed version in action. Free building instructions: http://sariel.pl/downloads/ Gear ratios: 1st speed: ratio 5:1 2nd speed: ratio 3:1 3rd speed: ratio 1.66:1 4th speed: ratio 1:1