Lasse D

It isn't said in the movie, but external sources has the Nostromo events happening around 2122: http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Alien_and_Predator_timeline http://time.absoluteavp.com/ Prometheus looks very promising judging by the style of the teasers.

And now that the instructions are out, I must admit that I have an infinite amount of mistakes: http://cache.lego.com/upload/contentTemplating/Technic2BuildingInstructions/otherfiles/download43406373C8D1423F6066FB1FE45DC356.pdf

It might not be available in all countries yet. Try to change location to USA.

LEGO has revealed a new picture of the rear of the bike. It turns out that I was wrong in choosing the gray liftarm 2 with crossaxle hole. http://shop.lego.com/en-US/Quad-Bike-9392

I see. The black stuff on the top of the B-model is a small L-beam and those new angle connectors that are used to hold the 9-beam in the rear of the main model. As for your steering, it looks awesome :)

What do you mean with your steering? I'm not sure you were wrong about the L-beams. The secondary model uses 3 liftarm 5 for the steering while the primary only 2. The additional liftarm might be from the rear suspension. I seem to be the only one who has used a gray liftarm 2 with one hole being for crossaxles for the rear assembly. I think this is the kind of piece holding the engine to the frame as well. My guess is that LEGO would rather have a stiff rear axle than having one of the wheels spin freely.

MLCad and post-processing using a program of my own to fix colors and deprecated parts. Here is the mpd file: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/gtahelper/Sets/9392/9392.mpd I see what you mean by the connector #1, but the B-model has two of them, right? It's better than mine which uses none at all. I can't quite figure out where they are supposed to go. Does anyone have a better idea? And I feel your pain with the rear lights - although not as much as the entry where the windshield was forgotten. EDIT: Seeing the B-model from the other side revelas that there is only 1 connector #1 in the set. EDIT 2: It might be used for an exhaust pipe which isn't visible.

Thanks. Then I must have done something wrong. Here is how mine looks:

Our contributions differ only in how we have guessed the unshown pieces :) The rear suspension seems to be too stiff when built this way. What is your oppinion? Does your rear suspension work well?

Go with Technic Control Center II as it can run on both power adaptor and batteries.

I have been unable to find the blog post where the history of LEGO vs Kiddicraft is analysed, but I have found these: http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=54084 http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/03/lego-stole-their-now-patented-bricks-from-kiddicrafts-patented-self-locking-bricks/ It seems like LEGO, and many others, tried to market plastic bricks in the different markets of Europe. Kiddicraft was first to use the mold, but all companies that tried to market bricks had very little success with the toy. Kiddicraft focused on other toys while LEGO finally invented the tubes and started having success.

Now this is what I love about MB - they make this series where the sets are completely distinguishable from ordinary LEGO and use the bricks to give a good building experience for the children. This is a win for all parties involved. You can then figure out fun ways of reusing the "unusable" parts, build a longer Porsche 'limo' or whatever crosses your mind.

So LEGO represents a de facto standard (like Word documents)? Then the clone makers should get together and formulate a real standard, give it a name and grant seals for the products that adhere to it and establish themselves as great alternatives because they follow a widely-accepted standard. They will then stand as an honest alternative to LEGO rather than "Sorry Jr. I thought these were real legos!"-products. The difference is subtle, but it makes all the difference IMO.

Is there an easy way to disassemble the hull pieces so that you can put Styrofoam into them and try to make it float? It might still be too top heavy, but that is worth a try.

Is it too much to ask for a source for where LEGO didn't act according to the law? I'm not talking about the idea of patents, so there is no reason to bring that up. LEGO's patents ran out a long time ago. LEGO has been relatively successful in keeping clone products out of markets because they carried too much of a resemblance to the real products. They are walking a fine line here. My question is. Is this really necessary? Can't the clone brands invent a superior building system, or at least use a scale that isn't LEGO "compatible"? So it's wrong to not completely embrace the clone makers because LEGO should be considered a basic architecture? LEGO doesn't have a multitude of 3rd. party vendors relying on this basic architecture of 8x8x10 mm. bricks in a way that software relies on instruction sets. That is. I don't buy your analogy. If I was less of a fanboy, would that make you less ashamed of being an AFOL? I mean. I can't have that on my conscience!

I have to applaud you for an excellent execution of a straw man. The clone brands thrive on the success of LEGO (using the same dimensions, interchangability of parts and similar design*) in a similar way as mockbusters do with movies, but by diverting to the slightly obfuscated history of how LEGO started out with interlocking bricks (you can find something bad on any large coorporation), you successfully won the argument: "Other companies should be allowed to clone LEGO products to a point where parents think they are buying the real thing because LEGO isn't perfect". I wonder how the history of LEGO can remain unclear. Wasn't there some guy who actaully did the reasearch and found out what actaully went on, and who you can simply reference?

I hope someone comes to claim it and gets fined for littering. Seriously. Stop repeating media stunts.

Knowing how hard it is to build a somewhat reliable roller coaster, I admire the simplicity and seemingly good reliability of your model. Well done, good sir!

OK. I get it now TBS. It is just a question of semantics. The model does indeed fly in the way you describe (and define) because the setup makes sure the weight is low. It is simply a different way of achieving the similar result of using a large helium balloon. That said. It is a very nice plane and it seems to function quite nicely. The original question is: Can you make a LEGO helicopter fly without any means of suspension/balloons to help out with the weight, and with current day LEGO, that answer must be: No.

Can someone please ask those guys in German if they claim that this model lifts itself and would be able to do so without the string which clearly has to be used to lift it? I can't really tell if trolling or what the purpose is. Right now I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by asserting that they do not fully understand what the terms mean in English.

First of all. This is both beautiful and very nicely working. That's a great achievement. I have tried to design my own side loader using a single motor to operate the arm. Have you tried to make it have all the functionality that you show (reaching out, grab and lift) using a single valve?

I'm expecting that people are a bit more honest about calling the ceiling planes what they are: models suspended in strings with motors to make them go in circles. The second video even shows the setup with the string and board, but it still claims to be "the first real flying LEGO...". In other words. Not what OP was asking for.

And by "controlling" you mean: "Supporting its full weight and provide lift". In other words. He has built a ceiling plane.

I didn't mention anything about a new rock crawler. Wait. You weren't talking to me? But you posted a new topic as if everyone knows what you are talking about... (Hint: Add context)

Builder was probably replying to the posts above his. What do you think? It is quite non-LEGO- and stud-full, but if you think of a limited parts selection and with focus on the LED-lighting, then this is a fantastic custom creation.