Jump to content
Issues with Images is known, we are working on it. ×

ludov

Eurobricks Knights
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    683

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ludov

  1. ludov
    That is a good argument that I hadn't considered. It is indeed courteous to ask, but I think we all agree on that. I'm not going to deny that I have an ego It hasn't happened to me, but I think I would be a bit annoyed if someone made a 1-on-1 copy of something that I've been working on for days and claim it as their own. Would it keep me awake at night? No, probably not. It's, as far as I'm concerned, not a topic of IP, but of courteousness and/or ethics. Absolutely agreed
  2. ludov
    I was amazed to see these every morning when I lived in the Detroit metro area: And, consequently, a lot of blown tires by the side of the road.
  3. ludov
    This question is triggered by a remark of Erik Leppen in the thread of his (excellent) TC7 entry. He wrote: Especially the part "with his permission" got my attention. I think it is common-sense courteous to mention the source of inspiration, especially when you used an exact copy of some technique or assembly. For example, I used a nearly one-on-one copy of a gearbox Sariel posted on his website in a MOC and made sure to attribute this to him when I posted it here. However, I hadn't occurred to me to ask for his permission to do this, as Erik Leppen has done for reusing the concept of D3K's steering setup. I have seen it before though, people asking in a MOC-thread something along the lines of "That's great, do you mind if I reuse this in a MOC?", but personally I don't expect people to ask me if they can reuse something (assuming that I would build something worth of reusing ). What are your opinion's on this? Should you ask permission? Is it sufficient to mention the source? The question is asked in the context of MOCs, but I guess there's a whole different side to the topic when you consider reusing building techniques in MOCs of which you intend to sell the instructions. In that context you have to consider the grey and murky border between copying and inspiration...
  4. ludov
    Oh, I misread it. Assuming you mean this part, I also had one left over. I didn't know it was called a 1x1 beam.
  5. ludov
    You seem to have too much there: you shouldn't have any leftover beams. Considering the amount of black pins, I'm assuming you forgot to put it somewhere, maybe on the dump bucket? For the rest: there seem to be more leftover (spare) parts than in the olden days because they part out per sub assembly. Since there are 6 subassemblies, you essentially have 6x the spares that you would expect for one set.
  6. ludov
    Haha, wonderful! I like how you managed to put all this stuff hidden in the trailer. The turbine detaching is a great find. What part is that turbine made of?
  7. ludov
    Agreed. I'm just saying that all the complexity is getting a bit in the way of my building experience. But that is my opinion.
  8. ludov
    I truly enjoyed building the axles (front and back) and the cabin, but the "chassis" (if we can call it that) was a bit of a disappointment to build. It just felt like adding beams, axles and gears all over the place. I often had no clue of what I was building until it was finished. Maybe I'm just being old-fashioned, but I really liked starting of with something that looked like a chassis and then adding on to it, like we had in the brick-beam times.
  9. ludov
    The cylinder indeed seems to work fine. I was more worried about rust or something. If it's solid aluminum it should be good, but if it's coated or something, it might deteriorate. In any case, I asked LEGO the same question. I'll post when they answer.
  10. ludov
    When I got the cylinders out of the box of the 42043 MB Arocs, I noticed the metal part of one of them was damaged: there is a small ring-like scratch around it. Has anyone seen something like his before? Can it hurt? I'm not very good a macro shots, as you can see. The scratch is about 1.5cm from the right.
  11. ludov
    I like this! I think it is a quite elegant solution, better than the alternative you're proposing at the end of your post. The whole idea would probably work better with a heavier claw, as that would increase the friction on the pulley and also make it easier to keep the claw level during opening/closing. If you have one, maybe you can add one of the Technic counter weights (like the one on 8868) to the claw. It seems silly though to add weight just for that...
  12. ludov
    It took me a long time to build 42009. Partly because of all the gears, but mostly because there were just so many steps. Also my colorblindness didn't help: I ended up tearing apart half the model because I used the only 7L black beam somewhere in the middle, instead of a DBG one. I should note that this was my first "studless" build after my dark ages, so that may have been part of the problem In the olden days, I remember that 8480 took me quite a while. It is very compact with a lot of functionality in a small space. I remember routing the wires required some attention. Also 8868 was challenging for me at that age for the same reason: all the hoses had to go to the right place.
  13. ludov
    While I doubt that LEGO will do anything special for the 40th anniversary (maybe the 50th...), I'm fairly sure that if they were to do something, many of the ideas proposed in this thread wouldn't stand a chance. Huge 4000+-piece sets will be too expensive for about 95+% of the potential buyers and will thus be too expensive for TLG to develop. The various parts that have been suggested are too much a niche too; I think TLG learned its lesson with the fiber optics system and the plethora of specialized parts in the early 2000s. That leaves either new renditions of old sets or a contest as feasible options, or a combination thereof. I like the idea of a contest among FOLs to make a modern version of an old classic (flagship). However, I'm not sure which flagship would qualify the most for such a contest (I think "just pick one" would make judging too hard): the many supercars, such as the 8880, have been done of the years in various forms and shapes so have shovels and excavators 8868 saw a fairly recent rendition in the form of the 9397 8480, despite its awesomeness, doesn't leave a lot of space of creativity That leaves 8094 Control Center I and 8485 Control Center II. I'm not entirely sure though what a original variation of this set could look like, but that would be part of the challenge. It could look like a GBC, although the availability of balls would be an issue, or some other robotic machine. It would be a great contest in the spirit of Technic though! (PS: for those wondering: the huge machine crossing the road on the first page of this thread is the Bagger 288, one of the world's biggest bucket-wheel excavators)
  14. ludov
    That is awesome! I like all the details you've put in, although the hammer looks a bit small
  15. ludov
    The truck (42008) is a bit useless without the electronics... And it sells new at LEGO Shop@Home for US$ 129.99, so that guy is overcharging you by a large margin for that set. The supercar is very interesting, as it gives you a lot of cool parts. The cheapest I found on Bricklink is 120 euros (about US$ 135 at the moment). If you can talk him down to US$ 120 I would definitely go for that one.
  16. ludov
    Very nice review! I kind of liked this set, in the sense that I enjoyed building it (but I enjoy building just about anything ), and playing around with it on the dining table was fun for a while. As I'm still trying to get some more studless technic to complement my 80s and 90s collection, I thought this was quite a good part selection. I agree though that it isn't the best looking set ever. Also, the gearbox was not really needed, as motorizing this set is not particularly useful.
  17. ludov
    That looks great, as usual! The gap between the trailer wheels and the container seems a bit big, but that's maybe just my European perspective: here the rear wheels often are very close to the trailer body. How much can the tandem move forward and backward? I never knew that such setups existed. You learn something every day
  18. ludov
    Maybe the perspective of the photo is misleading me, but the Ackermann setup seems to be inverted. At least, from the photo it looks like the outer tire is steering more than the inner tire, and it should be the other way around. In any case: it looks good! I like the rear axle setup, from what I can see of it. Curious to see the end result
  19. ludov
    I had exactly this problem just a few weeks ago: the sticker sheet was all crumbled up inside the box of a set I bought at a random toy store (in The Netherlands). I wrote an email via the LEGO website asking if I could get a new one, and a few weeks later I got a brand new sticker sheet in the mail at no cost.
  20. ludov
    This is awesome! So much firepower hidden so nicely, and lots of functions too. Very well done!
  21. ludov
    I think it is the same problem. I can't move mine by hand either. I'll try to open mine, to see what happened.
  22. ludov
    Very very very cool! What a great way to introduce yourself, welcome!
  23. ludov
    Are you referring to these motors? Supposedly the right-hand one is stronger and better. However, I have 7 of the left-hand ones, which all still work, and the single right-hand one I have is stuck. I already had it replaced once, because the original also got stuck after being unused for some time. I don't know why though, maybe the internal gearing got rusty or something...
  24. ludov
    This is so cool. I never knew such machines existed. Very nicely executed!
  25. ludov
    This is great! So many functions and details in such a small scale. Thanks very much for posting it.
×
×
  • Create New...