Jump to content

Didumos69

Eurobricks Dukes
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,045

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Didumos69

  1. Didumos69
    I noticed that too, but the narcissist in me likes to hold it left-handed so I can see the silver cup myself
  2. Didumos69
    It's admirable how you try to build at such a small scale and (mainly) with parts you already have. The undercarriage and cabin are looking good already and I think the 6.5 stud axle spacing seems to be the best option. Good luck!
  3. Didumos69
    Coffee tastes ridiculously good these days! Thanks for the nice mug !
  4. Didumos69
    Progress is slow, but I'm thinking of continuing the reuse of 42056 parts, which means an orange/black body. This is what I have sofar.
  5. Didumos69
    You should move the rotation point of the lever two studs higher. Now the movement of the actuator translates into practically as much horizontal movement as vertical movement of the upper end of the shocks. By moving the rotation point of the lever higher, the rotation of the lever will translate mostly into vertical movement of the shock ends. If this results in too little movement of the shocks, you might also consider moving the point where the actuator attaches to the lever one or two studs upwards. In general you have to make sure the rotation point of the right angled lever 1.) levels horizontally with the point that needs to move vertically (in this case the upper end of the shock) and 2.) levels vertically with the point that moves horizontally (in this case the rear end of the actuator).
  6. Didumos69
    From my experience working with a tolerance of 0.05M in LDD never leads to problems in a real life build. I know 42070 uses a 5,11,12 right triangle in the roof, where the hypotenuse of a right triangle with base 5 and height 11 should actually be 12.04. Only when a structure is supporting some kind of drivetrain with meshing gears etc. I would advice zero tolerance.
  7. Didumos69
    Yes. You have to measure pin-hole-center to pin-hole-center.
  8. Didumos69
    This is exactly how I feel. I'm not going to make compromises. The only possibility I see, is to skip one of the rear suspension arms including it's L-motor and wheel. While building I noticed the 3 other wheels remain glued to the ground if one arm misses, even with both BuWizzes in place. If I skip the BuWizz on the same side it might even perform .
  9. Didumos69
    @Ron1, in the rules it states: Must use ONE BuWizz brick. Does this mean using two BuWizz bricks is not allowed? I was thinking of entering with my 4WD RC buggy (work in progress), but if using two BuWizzes is not allowed, then I will have to pass.
  10. Didumos69
    In general you can produce 'gridded' triangles using Pythagorean triples. The smallest ones are (3,4,5) and (5,12,13). You can also make use of the kite-shapes defined by the incircles of these triangles. The incircles have radius 1 and 2 respectively. The nice thing about the (5,12,13)-triangle is that the angle made by the red line segments (180 - 2 arctan(2/10) = 157.38 degrees) practically coincides with the angle of a #3 connector (157.5 degrees).
  11. Didumos69
    On my phone it only plays after downloading the entire file. I guess bricksafe doesn't play .mov files.
  12. Didumos69
    This could have been the whacky wheels contest winner! Very original!
  13. Didumos69
    Nice to see someone coming out of his dark age with such an original model . I like its menacing look and would love to see a video. I'm happy to have taken part in drawing your attention to this forum .
  14. Didumos69
    The chassis lacks widthwise structure. This way you will have a lot of flex and eventually parts will disconnect. The lack of a widthwise structure is especially apparent between the struts in the front section.
  15. Didumos69
    -
  16. Didumos69
    Haha, no, just Perfectionist please. There are much better Clockwork builders out there and I'm afraid perfectionism is my burden and virtue in general.
  17. Didumos69
    Thanks! If you could also drop the term Porsche from Porsche Perfectionist I would be even more thrilled .
  18. Didumos69
    Congratulations @MegaRoi and @Anto! And thanks to @Jim and @Milan for having this contest!
  19. Didumos69
    Aha, now that should speed up the counting process significantly, haha .
  20. Didumos69
    Thanks! Thanks! I'm very happy with the power / speed balance it currently has. It can take a steep slope and ride an uneven surface with very acceptable speed. I will certainly do my best to make sure the performance won't be affected much by the additional weight of a body. I'm thinking of naming it "Greyhound".
  21. Didumos69
  22. Didumos69
    If that's your goal I would not use this model as a starting point. Like @agrof pointed out, this model was built as a manual model and it's main focus was to have properly angled off-road axles. Also, it was my first MOC and I would probably design a model like this with less parts and better form-locking these days. If I were you I would look at motorized MOCs for inspiration.
  23. Didumos69
    I don't think so. Right above the U-joint runs an important 5L axle and to not rub against it I think the printed joint would need to sit too far away from the wheel hub. Why would you want to replace the joints with printed ones?
  24. Didumos69
    Now that the framework feels good enough, I thought I might share the LXF-file. Feel free to comment. Please note that this is still work in progress and please don't share it with others.
  25. Didumos69
    I will certainly try to keep it minimalistic. I will also skip things like a working steering wheel or a fake engine. I tend to see this build as a model of an RC buggy. I don't know, actually. I only charged the BuWizzes twice since I have them installed (about 10 days ago) and I exercised alot (half an hour a day), but not always in ludicrous mode. Last time I charged them was last Saturday and they are certainly not empty yet. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...