Captainowie

I had a list of things to build, including these that I've had in mind since 2006. But then I started building GBC modules. I've got enough ideas for that to keep me going well into the future.

As you wish. But don't come crying to me when it's too bright for your IR. Or someone else steals your channel. Or you find you don't have line-of-sight to the receiver any more. :-) Also, if you have to have an umbilical cord anyway for the electrics, it doesn't take much to add a couple of pneumatic hoses, so you can add remote-controlled pneumatic functions as well! - It's quite easy to replace the wire portion - and you can make your new wires as long as you like! - Then do what you would do for any weak connection - reinforce it! - Sometimes PF requires just as much running after your car as a wired remote. I'm not denying that PF has been a game-changer, and I'm not claiming that umbilical cords are perfect. I'm just pointing out that they have some advantages and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Remember, Remote != wireless. Some of the 9v cables were quite long. String a couple of those together and you've got yourself a perfectly serviceable remote control.

From the software website: "you need an internet connection to activate and use the application since it monthly checks for authorization with the registration server". So eventually, when the domain expires, none of us will be able to use the extra features.

I assumed it would be the same process as for photos and text files. However, I just tried it on a random LXF file, and there are complications because it prompts a download rather than displaying the resource in your browser. You should still be able to post the direct link though, you can get it by a right-click/copy. It should be of the form www.brickshelf.com/gallery/username/folder/tree/filename.lxf, and should be available immediately. DISCLAIMER: I have not actually tested this, but I can't see any reason it wouldn't work.

Hi zux. I'm afraid it's not quite that simple - I can't say "Use this software if you want to do that", because each software will have strengths in different areas, but most software can be used to do most things, to some extent. Also, I have not used LDD at all, nor have I used any of the instructions elements (stepping, etc) in any of the software I have used. Nonetheless, I'll try. Documenting existing creations - Pretty much any of the tools can be used for this. If this is all you want to do, then it might make sense to choose one with a shorter learning curve like LDD. Prototyping new ideas - If this is your primary purpose, then give serious consideration to a tool that can understand connections between parts, so that you're not inserting bricks physically inside other bricks. LDD, SR3DBuilder and LDCad do this. You might also like something that can rotate gears etc in their correct ratios when another gear is rotated. SR3DBuilder is probably best for this. Building instructions - I understand that LDD can automatically create instructions from a model, but I also understand that they're not very good. If you want fine-grained control, then you're going to want to use the LDraw system of tools. LPub is excellent for making the instructions, but the different editors have different ways of dealing with stepping, rotations etc. I'll let someone with experience chime in here Hope that helps. That depends on whether you want the extra features that registration gives you. If you only just got it working today then you probably don't know yet whether those features will benefit you. That said, I'm not sure whether sending the money to the registration paypal address will actually result in someone sending you an activation code - regardless, though, I'm sure Sergio's family would appreciate it.

That link is to the folder, and has to wait for moderation. Brickshelf deeplinks (the ones ending in a filetype) work immediately.

Another good option is LDCad. It's a 'next-generation' LDraw tool like SR3DBuilder, and has many of the same features (like part snapping, easy to build at arbitrary angles, in-built synthesis of flexible parts) but maintains many of the best parts of MLCad (like submodels and the ability to directly specify position/rotation of elements). It is undergoing active development but is very usable in its current state. The responses you got here and in the other forum are pretty much spot on - there is no "best" package, but different packages for different needs. It's kind of like going to a programming forum and asking what's the best language (or editor) to code in - everyone will assure you that the one they use is the best, but in reality what's best is what you're most comfortable with. Which software you choose will probably also depend on what you want to achieve. Do you want to document your existing creations? Do you want to prototype new solutions to see if they work before building in bricks? Do you want to create massive projects that you know you'll never have the space or budget for to build in real life? Do you want to make building instructions so that others can copy your work? Do you want to take your models and make photorealistic renders? Animations? All these things are possible, and which of them you want to do should guide your choice.

Very nicely done.

Try http://technicopedia.com/ - the LDraw files are usually available at the model page.

Like everything else, it's a trade-off between realism and practicality. If you're going for something particularly realistic, then sure, stick it in, but if it adversely affects your design goals (e.g. it looks ugly, or affects playability, or whatever) then I don't think anyone is going to blame you if you went for a non-swiveling hook. Owen.

Nice. How well does it handle multiple balls at the input? Also, +1 for the Carcassonne tiles!

In that case you'll definitely need two controllers. In terms of multiplexing the four separate controls into two levers, the page you've linked to offers some excellent hints. I don't understand what more you want from us - we can't build it for you.

No, it didn't - if you wanted to control everything at once you had to buy an extra controller.

The number of receivers you need depends on the number of functions you have. The number of controllers you need depends on how many functions you want to be able to activate at the same time. For instance, the 8275 Bulldozer has four distinct functions (left track, right track, blade, ripper) but uses one remote. This means that when you're playing with it, you have to choose between driving or doing other stuff by setting the remote to the appropriate channel. In your case, are you going to want to be lifting/tilting the bucket at the same time as you're driving? If so, then you'll need multiple controllers each set to their own channel. It's not entirely clear how many distinct functions you have - when you say "2 m motors lifting and raising the bucket", are those motors running together (say, powering a linear actuator on each side of the machine)? Or are they independent of each other? If the former, then you need two receivers and up to two controllers, if the latter, you'll need three receivers and up to three controllers. Does this help? Owen.

Disclaimer: I don't have a great deal of interest in cars, either real or LEGO, so what follows is pure speculation, and may turn out to be completely untrue. I will present things as fact, so that I don't have to append "or this is how it seems to me" to everything. What we're really trying to do here is define the word 'supercar'. We're looking for a list of things that we can compare to any given model and say "Yes, that model has all the things on the list, that's a supercar" or "No, that model doesn't have X feature, it's not a supercar". I think it's instructive to look at what has happened to the term in the realm of real cars. Originally, the term referred to a vehicle that was state-of-the-art. A car that pushed back the boundaries of what was possible with the technology of the time. Over time, the tag of 'supercar' became somewhat watered down (I can see how that happened. Car A breaks new ground and is rightfully called a supercar. Car B, coming somewhat later, has the same features as car A, so is also called a supercar, despite the fact that there's nothing really new about it.) so that now it means "A very high performance car". We now have a new term, 'hypercar', used to describe vehicles that are genuinely as good as it's possible to get. Presumably the current range of hypercars will fall behind the state-of-the-art and we'll need a new term - ultracar, anyone? So how does this apply to LEGO cars? Well, the original supercars all represented the pinnacle of what could be achieved with the parts of their era. The first one doesn't even have suspension (well, it does, but it's only simulated - there's no actual movement) or a differential. Is it fair to no longer call it a supercar? There are things proposed above that would rule out even the venerable 8880 as a supercar. So, by trying to come up with a list of features that makes a supercar, we're moving the term away from meaning 'state-of-the-art', and more towards 'a very high performance car', and I'm not sure we want to do that (well, it's going to happen anyway, what I'm saying is that we probably don't want to accelerate it). Suppose we decide that a supercar needs to have X feature, that currently takes many parts and is very tricky to get right. Then LEGO introduces a part (or several) that makes X feature absurdly easy to do. Suppose this happens for most of the features on the list - it's certainly happened for just about everything that makes 853 special, there's no reason to believe it won't happen for current models. Then anybody can slap together something and call it a supercar. In conclusion, I think trying to nail down a set of strict criteria is inherently a bad idea. Owen.

Ah yes, that makes sense - I should have looked at the other combinations more closely. That would be all of them? (well, the ones that don't go 90 degrees) - they're all bent at the same angle. Are you happy now with why 5/10/13 is mentioned? Erik gives a pretty good explanation.

At the start of this year I undertook my first project in python using Qt, so I know all about GUIs taking more time than the actual calculations! A couple of suggestions (noting that I haven't yet downloaded the source code): If the aim is to find how to make a specific angle, it might make more sense to sort your output by Angle, and have that as the first column. It's not explicit that your B side is in different units than your other two sides (it took me a while to figure out what was going on - "8 5 10? that's not a Pythagorean triple? Oh, that's 5 bricks making a length of 6 studs"). What if my upright was a beam rather than a stack of bricks? What if I wanted to make the hypotenuse out of a stack of 1x2 bricks? By not considering these options you're needlessly limiting yourself. Do you know why the 5-12-13 triangle is not displayed? (12 studs should equal 10 bricks, so that should be in your table as 5 10 13) Have you considered adding a tolerance? There are a bunch of combinations that aren't exact, but work well enough in real life. In the below image for example, I have a triangle that's A = 3-studs, B = 7-bricks, C = 9-studs. The pin doesn't quite line up in the hole on the render, but in actual bricks it's fine. Owen.

I recall reading your post/s on LUGNET with interest, and spent ages trying to figure out how that worked. Ha! Not likely, given the amount of time my cylinders and switches seem to spend in the bottom of my parts drawer. Too many other problems to solve!

Yep, those are the ones. Thanks!

Hi Mark. I remember some years ago reading a detailed write-up by Kevin Clague that starts with a simple feedback loop, and progresses through a mathematical notation to developing complex pneumatic sequences. Kevin's website is no longer online, but I was able to find a copy on the Wayback Machine here http://web.archive.org/web/20090412234424/http://www.kclague.net/Sequencer/index.htm, though without the very useful pictures. Do you know of a similar resource available now? Owen.

And that's your first one? My goodness, I can't wait to see what else you come up with! The mechanism is lovely to watch, but I particularly like the three-stage output chute. Owen.

It would be a shame if you did that. You might think "Oh, I only got 44 points", but if you consider that 12 voters had your model in their top 6, that's actually a pretty good outcome. Plus, you can lord it all over people like me, who didn't even enter. If you're entering these contests for the purpose of winning, you're doing it wrong.

Well, all my inter-city transport is booked, just need to sort out accommodation. How far out from the Convention should I book this (assuming I haven't found a roommate in the interim)? One way or the other, I'll be there!

The last two days have been north of 40 degrees Celsius (~100 Fahrenheit) where I live. I'm not sure that counts as 'enjoying' :-) I did read the previous threads about the pizza party, and I am looking forward to partaking. I think what I might do is book a hotel room anyway - does anybody know how easy it is to update the details with an extra person if I do happen to find someone who wants to share? Owen.