BusterHaus

@Didumos69 This popped up in my Google image search today. I hope you're getting a cut. https://mobile.carousell.com/p/4wd-rc-buggy-moc-19517-by-didumos-lego-mixed-lepin-technic-remote-control-202002375/

Excellent C-model, I like it better than the main build.

I like this design, it seems very reliable. Do you have any concerns about the shifting time? Does it vary a lot with the different voltages available from the BuWizz unit?

What @M_longer said is very true. PDF instructions require a lot of labor. If you are interested in making better instructions from LDD, you can convert LDD to LDR and work on making steps for the instructions in LDCad or a similar program (use the latest conversion settings file), then lay out the instructions in LPub and publish the result as a PDF. The stepping process takes time, as you need to decide which parts fall into subassemblies, the sequence of the assembly and view rotation angles. The layout in LPub involves deciding how many steps you are showing per page, the formatting of the pages, margins, colors, scaling, etc. You will also learn that the LPub software has several limitations and hard requirements on making accurate BOM lists. In other words, it's a lot of stuff to learn, which takes away from building time. I'm not trying to discourage you from the undertaking, just showing you what you'll experience if you head down this path.

Is there a pivot point in the other cars (at the end of the couplers) that will allow up/down bending? I know the track elevations aren't steep, but they will still put unnecessary strain on the parts if these pivots arent there.

I just got caught up on this thread, nice project for the winter! I got stuck on these three pictures for a while, as I can't figure out why the floating parts are not a subassembly. Anything with an arrow could have been built off the model and installed using the two 3x5 L beams. This subassembly can also be split into two separate subassemblies, first one with the 11L beam and two L beams, second would be the two 11L beams attached to the 5L beam. Large models really benefit from being broken into smaller modules that can be built outside and then installed. It makes the instructions easier to read and a lot shorter, as you don't need to show the whole model for each few parts. Sorry for the rant, I don't mean to derail your topic. Keep up the hard work.

This may work as a replacement. Here is a side view:

Nice improvements, I'm not a fan of HOG steering placed in the rear, so it's good to see it on top. I didn't realize that the rim design for both tires matched. Good work!

The yellow/black part that is inserted from the top slides over to the right, and in its place slides a piece that's the same color. In short, there four parts that are yellow - three of which slide behind the black wall when the windows are aligned. The fourth one is the only one that's removable.

I gave it some more thought and came to the conclusion that the Hyundai example is only partially correct. Lego never made poor quality bricks, so a bad reputation is not something that they need to overcome. I used Hyundai to illustrate that it's more difficult for a company to get customers to accept high prices when you enter (or exist in) a market with affordable products. It takes time and effort to help customers get over sticker shock, and there is a ceiling to the price customers are willing to accept. We may be reaching that ceiling if the discussions surrounding the 42100 are any indication. This being said, I suspect that Lego is trying to differentiate itself from other brick companies by continuing to offer not only high quality bricks, but luxury sets. They are not interested in competing on the price per piece, as that's only a race to the bottom, with a hard limit on profits. The luxury toy market seems to have/had room for growth, or you wouldn't see products and prices like the 42100 or the latest UCS Millennium Falcon. At some point they will reach the aforementioned price ceiling that customers are willing to accept for luxury toys, and you will not see (many) sets above that price. But as long as we're buying these luxury toys, they will keep testing the waters with more expensive sets.

The question of whether or not it's a toy only being asked because of the sticker shock. Let me illustrate this: Tesla's first mass produced/adapted car, the Model S, is expensive (please ignore any TOC or NPV calculation). It's a full-fledged luxury vehicle, and a flagship for the brand. When Tesla came out with the Model 3, the price was much less of an issue, despite still being high, because it was cheap compared to the Model S. In contrast, Hyundai started with cheap, crappy and inexpensive little cars which over time improved in quality and design. Roughly 10 years ago, Hyundai decided to enter the luxury market, but knew it would have a difficult time selling a $50k car under its brand name. So it created a luxury brand called Genesis, which can have flagship models with flagship prices without being burdened by Hyundai's history of cheap, crappy cars. Lego is taking the Hyundai path, mostly due to historical reasons. Sets are growing in size from year to year, there seems to be a demand for them despite the increasing set prices ($ per part is not being discussed here), and Lego even created a UCS line for these higher-end sets, indicating that they are a luxury item. If Lego were a new company in 2019 and launched the Technic line with the 42100, the Bugatti and the Porsche GT3 would have looked like bargains in comparison. The 42100 is a toy, an expensive toy, but still a toy. It's all a matter of being used to certain prices.

Nice execution, it works very smooth.

I don't have a specific project that requires these features right now. I had some experience with industrial servo drivers that allowed fine-tuning of such features separately from the program. I was wondering if Arduino had the ability to adjust the setting, but it looks like it gets built into the program, like in EV3. It's probably better that way, as you don't have to think about changing these settings when you change projects - the settings are already inside the program.

Very nice video, I like the weight test setup. How much control do you have over these servos - do you have access to low level settings like acceleration, deceleration or gain(s)? I never found these settings in the official EV3 software (besides building them into the program), and I'm not sure if these settings accessible with other methods.

Great device, I like the simplicity of it. The dice rolling mechanism seems very reliable, does it ever jam?

New (beta) version of the BuWizz app has been released. It allows saving profiles (finally), background images, resized controls, repositioned controls, control labels, control style (not working yet on my phone). Im at work, so I haven't connected it to a BuWizz unit yet, but so far the app is a huge improvement over the last one. Screenshot of a profile I created: https://photos.app.goo.gl/DkypGMnohyMdzRhc8 Link to the beta version (Play Store) of the app: https://click.pg.mlsend.com/link/c/YT0xMDY2NDUzMjMxMDI4MTQ3Mjc5JmM9dDlnOSZlPTE5MjgmYj0yMjUwNzM1NjQmZD1nNnQxdDBx.0Cdb0L5EG1BIfg2HYLZiwM8sHCjTNWyaU-EzpjW-nLU iOS version is pending approval from Apple, should be available in a couple of days.

@oracid Reading the code, it looks very clean for controlling 8 servos and the comments are very helpful. I don't know the language and I can still understand quite a bit of it. Do you write code outside of this hobby?

Awesome walker, it would not be possible to build it this small with Lego motors. I sometimes wish we could get micro servos for the EV3 unit, it would help keep the builds smaller.

I had the same reaction as Jim. Looks fantastic, and the train design matches the theme of the rail design - a combination of Technic and System parts.

Are you lubricating the moving parts from the start? Or seeing how long they will last unlubricated?

Great write up Erik, and the fixes look good. I'm particularly fond of the way you broke up the modules - most of the cars I made followed the same method, because it allows testing and the examination of individual mechanisms. By the way, which program do you use for the digital build?

Very nice project. The movements are not jerky, and the range of motion is good, too.

Most common grades of stainless steel (AISI 302, 304 and 316) are not magnetic. AISI 400 series is magnetic, but not commonly used. An additional test would be weight/density. Without measuring the axle and its weight, you can judge by the feel of the axle. Aluminum is much lighter than stainless steel, but a bit heavier than a similar plastic axle. Stainless steel axles would feel more like a small fork or other similar table utensil, much heavier than a similar plastic axle. Of course the ultimate test is calculating density, but we'd rather spend time building.

Holy stacked beams, Batman! I remember this airship! Nice rendition of it, and lots of functions. It could be a bit more curvy, but that's difficult to achieve with the stacked beam method.

Merry Christmas to everyone and happy Holidays. I haven't been around here often lately, bit my New Year resolution is to fix that.