mahjqa

I'd think that this would give a clearer impression of what the goal is; [media] [/media]So while none of these toys are motorized, they do all have springs to automate the transition a bit. If you have the time, look up some toy reviews of the MASK line, some of these are pretty clever.

Great theme! Though I suppose there will be many more bandits than enforcers. I won't be joining (other people can use the prizes better than me) but I might just build a cop car anyway.

From what I can see it's a very nicely made model, but the pictures are really blurry. Would it be possible to take some more with your camera resting on something, or on a tripod? That would improve the quality a lot.

I'll grant you that it's all very subjective. For example, two or three of the vehicles you've posted have that charm for me that I just don't see in the 8865. And there are tons of reasons why the 8865 looks the way it does. Cost being a big one. The eighties being another. Doesn't stop it from looking awkward, unfinished, and pretty much unlike any real car I've ever seen.

I didn't do it myself, I had it done by someone who works with scale models. For reasons I won't get into they won't be sharing their methods with me or anyone else. I suppose your best bet would be to ask at a store where they sell supplies for scale modelers. Sorry about that.

dhc6twinotter; it was kind of odd, typically weight distribution doesn't have that much of an impact. Saberwing40k; I believe the computer got the job done better than a camera rig would. Well, I say the computer did it, but I still had to manually rotate the movie frames to make sure it came out right. The panels are painted, sadly. It's not something I'd usually do, but it was too sweet an opportunity to pass up on. I console myself with the fact that I didn't functionally alter the parts, so anyone can still build this. BusterHaus; what's not to be trusted about these parts? They grip as well as tires do. Also, I secured them on both sides, so they can't slip off their axles.

The rolling shot was rotated on the computer. I had to zoom in a fair bit, which is why that shot is a bit blurrier than the rest.

Actually, the wet ground causes the wheels to slip, which means it won't roll over at all. (The final shot, where it just brakes in front of the camera, was done on slippery asphalt) A high center of gravity helps a lot to keep it going, but for best results it should be in the exact center of the vehicle. If it's too far up, it won't keep rolling, and get stuck on its back.

. Actually, this model took both a full year and just two days to make. We built the first prototype at my place about a year ago, just to see if it could be done. It could. In the mean time, I had been thinking about how to add steering to it, but the result was so bulky that it just wouldn't roll anymore. So, when I stayed over at his place a week ago, we finished and filmed the build. In case you want to take a look at the internals, there's an LXF file here: http://vayamenda.com/lxf/bugroll.lxf

These vehicles all look excellent. Lots of character, and from what I can tell some fine mechanics as well. Also, I really dig that you went "stylized" as you call it; when you have to have to choose between "accurate" and "fun", I'd say always go for fun. As for the "teaser" thing... people like to look at things. And as far as technic creations go, words are not enough to get a good picture of what you built. Most of all I'd say; don't worry too much about picture or video quality if you don't have the time; it's better to just get it out there than to have nothing at all to show for your efforts*. *Trust me, I'm still trying to learn that one.

Ebay sellers can't be trusted in matters like these.

Rm8, Tommy Styrvoky; I think both your models would be very well suited. They would propably be a bit smoother, but so far I've found them to be a bit hard to integrate in such a way that they don't obscure the view of the camera. Luckily, the small ones do the job. That would be this one: They share some similarities, as it's an earlier version. I constantly try to adapt and improve my camera vehicles. You've got me interested! Any chance of a picture of yours? Thank you It's hard to get real, solid data. However, the general impression I get is that they do work. And you're right that there are many ways to stabilize footage, either in camera or in postproduction, but I've found that the better the footage you start with, the better the end result will be. Again, thanks

So, when I posted my , plenty of people were actually more interested in the camera vehicles than the car itself. So, here's some details on them.This post deals mostly with the vehicle that travels in a straight line. In the making of, it shows up . This one: Very few people make camera vehicles to show off their builds, even though they can add some great visuals to a video. I'll try and nail down what makes them work for me. Very important: Keep your camera close to the ground. Really close. Nope, closer than that. And point it upwards a bit. Why do you want it that way? Well, most videos are filmed like this: Which shows the subject all right, but since we're looking down on it, our brain tells us immediately: "that is one tiny car, dude". Better is to have the camera at the same height as the subject itself. This is kind of OK. We're used to looking at cars like that, and our brain is slightly more convinced we're dealing with an actual car here. However, the lower you get your lens... Now we're talking. This is one massive vehicle. (I'm not going to argue that this picture looks prettier than the birds eye view. I'm saying it's more effective.) So, how do you get that camera angled upward? And how do you secure it nicely? Most cameras don't have dimensions that exactly match Lego parts... That's why you use tires. Lots of tires. Chances are, you already have tons of those tiny little tires sitting at home, and you never use them. Get them. Because they come in all sorts of sizes, you can easily adjust them to fit the shape of your camera. And since rubber has a little give, you can actually clamp your camera in tightly, so the camera won't shake. Anyway. More pictures are at my flickr thingie: Linear camera vehicle. I'll try to update this thread with more info when I have the time. Some short things: -The suspension. I've added springs to my camera vehicles, hoping it would smooth out the bumps. Will it fix everything? Nope. Still, I'm convinced that it helps. -My camera vehicles have NO STEERING of any kind. This one just goes forwards and backwards. To get into view, you actually have to steer your vehicle alongside it. To make it easier, I've used rechargeable batteries, so I can finetune the speed of the camera vehicle to match the car a little. (Usually, the camera vehicle should go slightly slower than the thing you're trying to film). To adjust the speed, you could also use a speed remote control. This has the advantage that there's an easy red "stop" button, and you don't have to run after your camera vehicle to turn it off again. For this version, I've made the propulsion unit separate: This way, I don't have to add suspension to driven wheels. The grey steering arms that stick out can move up and down a little, so any shocks of the propulsion unit don't really affect the camera. Anyway. Questions?

Thank you all for your kind words It's especially nice to hear it from all of you, as technic builders themselves have a good idea of the kind of work that goes into a build like this. I'm very glad you like the video, as a lot of time and effort went into that. For example, for the sunset shot at 0:53, I just set the camera vehicle to go in circles around the car, while I ran along to keep out of view. All the while, I was working the controls and hoping that the camera, the car and the sun would align at just the right moment. Luckily, the five minutes of footage that resulted from all of that had two separate shots I could use. As for the colour scheme... It's relatively modest compared to some. The whole project started with the rims, so gold definately had to be included. The first version had a grey frame, but I think the yellow adds a bit of spice. Also, it works well with the springs. As for the wheels, they are the unholy combination of these parts: The model team wheel works especially well, since it snaps into this part: The front wheels take a lot of punishment, so that really was the best way to attach them. As for the camera vehicles... what's still unclear about them? There are more pictures of the camera vehicles I've used over the years here: https://www.flickr.c...57630998766478/ https://www.flickr.c...57623679308508/ Some things I find useful for my camera vehicles: -springs do help a bit to smooth out bumps, but picking a good flat surface to work on helps a lot. I actually had to toss some otherwise good recordings because the tarmac I'd filmed on was just too bumpy. -You really want to be able to adjust the speed. Either use a rechargeable batterybox, or work with a train remote control. Or, alternatively, switch out your wheels. Small wheels go slower, big wheels go faster -In general; a lower camera looks better. As soon as you film a model from above, it's instantly obvious how small it actually is. -Also, if you can; get a camera that can capture slow motion video. It gives a model much more weight, much more impact. I'm planning to make at least an LDD version of the car. Can't promise much more. By the way, I was just wondering... does anyone know of an earlier 100% Lego lowrider that actually jumps this way? I've seen three-wheelers, like this but I'm not sure if this has been done before.

Edit: added a video explaining how it was made:

I was very impressed with the suspension, I hope he'll find some way to get the steering to work. Barman has several pictures of the meeting here, scroll down for pictures of the trial. As for obstacles, I'm a big fan of silver painted rocks I tried to give each vehicle at least two bits of footage; one kicking megablocks, and the other a blooper. Also, I don't want to overstay my welcome, so I typically keep my videos short.

It's all about the wheels.

Got me there. Honestly, you do. I could come up with plenty of justifications, but yeah.

DrJB: Please post away. Mind if I put it a copy of it on Vayamenda.com? I'll credit you, obviously. Then you don't. Or, you know, hand the designer a percentage of the profit. Incentive, you know. Do I need to stress here that without the designer there wouldn't be anything to sell in the first place? I am very much aware that there is nothing that would force a seller to do this. Common decency, perhaps. Still, it'd be nice. You're assuming wrong. One: the person selling this had a very good reason why they needed the money. Two: they asked. Nicely. I've explained this before. The fact that others can build my stuff is worth more to me than the disadvantage that some freeloaders profit off it. That doesn't make it right. As for the "it doesn't hurt anyone" argument... I'm still cooking up actual instructions for some models. Some of which I intend to sell. So, theoretically, that would eat into the amount of people I could sell those instructions to.

TheLegoExpert; There is something you may not have considered. After finishing the Tachikoma, I spent quite a lot of time and effort to make a neat, buildable version, a partslist and a 3D file so others could make one as well. All of this I released for free on www.vayamenda.com . Didn't do that for myself. I already know how to build my own models. It's simply that I enjoy technic, and I want to make it accessible to others as well. However, my first instinct when reading about you making money off my hard work is to take all of that offline. You didn't ask, you didn't notify, and you come here blabbing about it as if you're proud. However, I will keep my stuff online, because I don't want others to miss out because of a single jerk like you.

Thought this'd turn up sooner or later, and I'd just like the folks here to know that I'm OK with it. I know the builder, and he asked me permission to sell it since he really needs the money. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Custom-RC-powered-Lego-Technic-Tachikoma-spider-mech-by-Mahjqa-/221693707616?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item339df98560 Little sidenote: Just because I'm okay with this person selling one of my models, that doesn't mean that anyone can now sell my designs and models for their own profit. For now, this is a one-off thing.

Now. Typically, I don't think that bigger is better*. However, you didn't skimp on details, and the fact that you just made a vehicle up out of thin air is certainly a plus. Reminds me of the massive Thunderbirds doomsday machines like the .One question though. How well does it go around corners? *Especially not in competitions; it creates an unfair advantage to the folks with less money to spend.

Could you add this rim? http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=44292 It's no longer in production, but personally I think it's useful because it can be connected to this: which is something I find very useful.

I think that a big part here is how traditional gender roles are completely messed up. Simply by knowing wether someone has boy parts or girl parts, we both consciously and subconsciously attach a BIG set of assumed qualities and traits to a person. Guys 'should' be into sports, rowdy, adventurous and so on. Girls 'should' be nurturing, pretty and demure. This creates a VERY narrow acceptable range where someone can express themselves. A sensitive guy who likes to take care of kids is often seen as gay or a pedo. A girl who is assertive and outgoing is quickly seen as bossy or a slut. That whole "technology is for MEN" thing just reinforces that stupid behaviour for no reason at all. If we're going to throw around statistics, here's one for you: change a male name on top of a resume to a female name, and this person will automatically be seen as less competent. So it's not just "women are less interested in technology and science", but more "women are actively discouraged to have anything to do with technology and science." We, as a society, are actively discouraging women to get into tech. And yes, I think that's a problem. Thanks for promptly demonstrating how it works. Any attempt to discuss the status quo is quickly branded as 'sensitive', 'touchy-feely' and thus completely unworthy of discussion. Care to explain what your issue is?