Kristof

@LilMe This idea with doorframe greebling inlet is just brilliant. After some time, it's another jewel you achieved on this project!

@Zblj Good points. Sliding 8 tooth are on my wishlist too. Volvos shovel is very typical for front loaders - I guess it would have to be very similar model to use it. Not expecting such release anytime soon. Arocs sliders on contrary could be useful in whole variety of applications. I wish they will. @DrJB Feeling the written messages does sometimes cause a misinterpretations. All fine.

@Kamal There is nothing wrong on asking I guess :) Captainowie made good point there that a lot of such questions has no obvious answer we can figure out without asking Lego. In this case, however, I'll make a guess - rechargable box is expensive. If they included it in sets, they would have to increase the price (quite significantly) and that could discourage some potential customers from making the purchase. Since they have cheaper replacement in form of AAA box, that is I think the reason. The product itself exist as an alternative (or upgrade) for people who really want it and use its benefits. Important note - all just my guesses ;)

Questioning certain topic from the point of 'sense' or validity is a part of discussion or would you consider otherwise? I don't see why would you yell in uppercase if someone disagree with you ;) Cumulonimbus named it perfectly - discussion for the sake of discussing. Started as a question about certain technic parts, now seem to be disctussion about exclusivity and collecability in general...? Forgive me but I really feel that your question and arguments suggest that you somehow ignored the reality of evolution of (not only) TLG and lego market in past decades. It's like waking up one day and going like 'what the he** are unique parts for?'. You started discussing Technic parts (even named examples) and you got some explanations on what might be the reasons for short lifetime or intentional exclusivity of these parts. But you quickly evolved your argumentation on whole assortment (talking lego Elves now) which is significantly different area (collectible minifigs to come? Only come in one polybag set, what a shame). Of course that such modern-kid-aimed product lines like Elves use new minifigs or whatever parts to boost the demand (and sales consequently). Of course there are aspects of collectability and the quality of the set itself (in terms of building experience etc) has been shifted on the side track. I share your (guessing negative) opinion on these trends but these are obvious and not new and most importanly - not occuring in lego Technic. I'm myself not happy about how certain toys look like today and yes, this unfortunately includes some lego sets. I think there could (perhaps) be an interesting discussion about that but that neither belongs in Technic forum, nor is initiated by your question. Plus such discussion is usually very vague, people throw in their unbacked guesses and fast baked opinions including pointless critique and lack of insight into such complex problem (market, business, competition, business, sales, business...). As for me, I don't feel educated enough to contribute into such discussion, maybe except sharing whether I like it or not... To conclude, as much as you are free to start whatever topic (within the bounds of forum rules), others are free to express their opinions. I did. By no means I wanted to attack you as a person, because you are most likely nice guy (which I like to presume unless the person proves otherwise) and I apologize if my critique went to straight forward. I hope I made myself clearer now.

@DrJB I still can't get rid of feeling that this whole topic and discussion is rather fabricated and somewhat augmented. It simply is the way lego sets are made now (not only today ro this year - we are talking past... decade, at very least!). Earlier, true, part palette was much more limited which - besides all the negatives - indeed has its obvious positive that it was easier to build sets you didn't buy... but in fact, that has never been granted, still you had to have decent stock at home and there were much fewer sets being produced these days, which also increase this impression of 'universality'. Now, with more specialized parts, some of which happen to be quite unique, the models are cooler, more accurate, more interesting. And the argument that it makes it difficult to what actually - bricklink the parts? Or build it from your stock parts? - just doesn't seem very valid to me. From what you are saying it sort of feels like there were sets that would exclusively contain some super essential and indispensable key parts, while otherwise being crappy sets which you have no other reason to obtain. Well I don't think that's the reality :) If you like the set and you want to own it, there is hardly any cheaper way than buying the box. If you don't like the set, you most likely won't miss those few rare parts either. And if you from some reason desperately need these parts, well, then you have to pay some extra, either by getting the set just for the parts or to hunt them down on aftermarket. Nowhere in this equation I see some catty effort of TLG to force anyone to buy anything.

I'd try to design your engine that way so there is channel inside to route all these tubes. Also the valve could perhaps be attached with pegs facing inwards so you don't need to show that tubing (nearly) at all ;)

I don't really see why making exclusive parts (to certain extent) is any sort of 'practice'. Some of these parts were necessary rendition of unique design elements which absence would damage the appearence to badly. Others are just pieces that might seem practical to the designers but proved to be expandable/not much of use. Another common reason could be manufacturing problems or design drawbacks of certain element, such errors which were discovered after the part was released in some sets. Anyway, there are many more 'exclusive' molds in some system sets (not even talking bionicle-ish things). I don't see any particular problem with lego Technic.

^ I don't see why would you do some critical bending? Tubes can withstand quite tiny radius anyway unless you really want to 'fold' them over. I think that if you rout them inside and then cut to appropriate length, you don't need any auxilary methods of permanent bending or am I missing something?

I believe heat forming won't work very well for you - this rubber material isn't of such property to be easily 'gently melted' and then cool down firm into some shape. I'd guess that you'd end up damaging it or jamming the inside with either hot air gun or some other heater. Depending on how much bending do you need, I'd also suggest some searching for some alternative.

^ It was definitely very high for me too - part of a reason why it has taken over a year to me, persuading myself to start that endeavor of collecting parts :) Now I can say with confidence that it was definitely worth it. And really, looking at the lego prices, I highly doubt they would sell it cheaper if there was such set on shelves - it's rather clear candidate for their $169 price tag :D As I say, BL orders may give you variable outcome. If you have access to US market, the better for you (and the total price) and I honestly believe it can be done cheaper if planned carefully (avoiding high shipping costs, reducing number of orders). Sometimes it's just lucky find to discover the store that has whole bunch of pieces you need for fair prices... well and good things happen to good people :D

As far as I remember, it wasn't really a series - couple models in different scales where 'midi' stood rather as a set-size (part count) descriptor. What I aim for is uniform scale within the models - that doesn't really mean the model has to be small ;) 1,5k+ pieces on venator makes it decent build already. I think I might have spent a little over $100 given I had about 400 pieces in my collection to the start. Considering the piece count (1,5k) and some fairly rare elements, it seems like reasonable price to me. Perhaps with better BL order optimization, the costs could be cut further reduced. Congratz - I wish I had that piece :) Though it would look inappropriately tiny next to this Venator - it's supoosed to be about 20% bigger right? I think the new minifig ISD playset is close to the right scale. Thanks! Working on it.

Now that is an offer you simply can't turn down! :D

'SNOT' is perhaps not the best word for this - this build already was SNOT before, you are just getting rid of exposed studs (plus dozens of great improvements of course). You meant 'studless' or 'stud-free' maybe. Or you could bring up some new abbreviation :D

@roland, That's great, thank you for all the good work! If I may suggest something for update, it would be two things that I'm missing from LDD snap hinge tool (axis) in pin/studs (snap points) - perhaps with turn on/of button, like the snap tool itself. snap bricks during rotation - e.g. if I rotate technic liftarm so some hole just hits certain pin aaaand 'snap!' :D Thanks for the advices too, I have to say thath both subs and groups work really intuitively, even for absolute beginner (my time over ldcad now is less than 3 hours including reseach). Wat I don't fully comprehend is this 0,0,0 thing - do I set this 'inside' the sub model? @legolijntje, hey, now that's a hint. I may regret my complaints eventually :D Much appreciated.

^ Thank you Philo, works like charm. Regarding the forum, for me as for the newcommer, it's very confusing and uncomfortable to use. Should you be following the discussion from the very beginning, then perhaps it's easier to follow all these indented threads, for me though, the need for 'clicking' in order to find next reply makes me headache. I very much prefer to scroll and see the replies one after another. Secondly the search doesn't really give any comprehensive results. I guess it finds some topics with given words but without showing it in context, it's the matter of checking all the resulting topics manually whereas most of them don't contain the desired content. At least that's my experience - I wasn't very lucky finding anything with help of search. I also miss private messaging a lot - or is there one, just I don't have access yet? You are right that the tree of responses might possibly make it easier to overview but for someone who wants to browse through whole topic, searching for any useful information, it is rather an obstacle. File attachments is nice but then also people use it to attach images without displaying them in the text - another thing that makes reading and comprehending difficult. All in all, it might be just a first impression and I admitt I have been to fast making judgements - maybe in time I'll get used to it ;) But sometimes impression from new member can actually uncover some negatives which experienced users just no longer perceive.

^Thank you Jaco. I believe you already helped me some on LDraw forum. It is just so anoying to use that I rather moved here :) I'd say it would be worth considering to move whole community forum - It simply couldn't be less convenient. If I may extend my questions onto example - I want to do something like this: (this is just LDCad screenshot with painted arrows) So in the next step, all these wedge plate assemblies are tilted to form the front. Unfortunately, even before I could think about buffer exchange, I found out I can't set the propper rotation axis to these side parts, mainly because these are already tilted in another direction. The desired rotation axis is this: Any easy way to do that? By the way all these moving parts are submodels since I wanted to add them as callouts in LPub3D. Thanks!

Hello everyone. I'm newbie to LDCad (and LPub3D) and also a bit late to the discussion. Anyway, let me ask several questions (which probably have been answered already) just to make sure I got it right from reading the previous comments: For buffer exchange, I have to switch into MLCad? To show temporare part/assembly placements (before push, rotation...) I need to use Ghost on them? I also have a generalized question: What is the correct (best) routine for using groups and sub-models? So far I learned to use sub-models for sections that I want to build in callouts (even for like 4-part assemblies). Groups I don't use very much, sometimes to make sure I don't screw up some assembly that is eventual. Lastly, does anyone know about some good guide/tutorial onto LDCad in general but mainly this Buffer Exchange related stuff? Thank you and forgive my ignorance, I hope it won't last for very long! :D

Looking at this model it has some resemblance to Liebherr LTC 1045-3.1 which Milan built in gian scale for TC8. Have you thought about making that one in similar scale to your city crane? I think that could make for really nice model!

Wonderful instructions. Thank you very much for sharing Erik.

Excellent! Thank you very much for the instructions.

It's quite true to the real interior. Othe than that. I don't think it makes for particularly interesting set. It looks like empty gym :)

^ Yeah, same for me. If only the metal ones were cheaper and easier to get...

^ You explained it eloquently ;) Thanks. I'm now strongly considering buying these.

^ Jim, legolintje, I have bad experience with cheaper plastic frame organizers - pulling the drawers is sometimes very inconvenient, they don't slide evenly and tend to catch (which results in myself pulling harder and when it releases, all the content blows out...) - Isn't this the case? Because otherwise it looks like perfect purchase :)

You are right. peg/beam being in the 'middle' of the 2l side of 3L pin has been used in lego technic models and I see no real reason why it shouldn't be legal. Eventhough I don't think this is brilliant solution of any sort, it's definitely not as trashy as the comments above suggest. I believe it holds the axle quite well, still I'm quite sure that 3 puley wheels would grip at least as well (it's da** tight fit :D )