kbalage

Why would they keep releasing new PF 1.0 compatible elements if they introduce PF 2.0? They already changed systems and connectors in the past. Btw this was discussed previously in this topic, and here's a quote from this interview: "all future PF will be compatible with the new platform introduced with WeDo 2.0." So for me the questions is not really "will they change it?" but rather "how will they change it", looking forward to see if they managed to solve the stackability question for this type of connector.

Just noticed a funny little error in the 42077 B model manual during the creation of the RC upgrade manual. At step 210 the black pins that will support the hood are already in place and while you're building the hood in the next steps they are correctly not visible. At step 220 where the assembly happens suddenly they appear on the hood section and not on the body :) Looks like they changed the assembly process a bit but did not update all steps :)

I don't think this is wifi-enabled, there's no any reason to choose wifi over BT. Releasing a BT-enabled controller brick in the train set line first would be a smart move from Lego. They have the technology in Boost already, they only need to release a train motor and a battery box with the new connector and they can test drive the new PF control system this year to look for any issues then introduce this and the new PF v2 motors in the Technic line (hopefully) next year.

@Lipko this is already a slightly different topic but about recognition and success in the Lego world - it works pretty much the same as with anything else. If you're looking for success, then you have to build following the taste and requirements of your audience and you need to be able to sell it (not only literally), promote, do all the marketing bulls**t. There's too much noise in this world, only the loudest gets recognized. I'm not sure if it is about the geographical location, rather the attitude and where you put your efforts (building vs promoting).

There are some parts hanging in the air in the lxf, not sure if it is unfinished or I have issues with the file. I see you kept the fake engine but the L motor is not driving it anymore, that would be good to update, will look into it. Btw if you need help with the description (not that difficult ): "This set was made to be RCfor the LXF : part 22921 = part 27940 !- 1 L motor- 1 Servo- 1 AAA Battery box- 1 IR receiver"

Technic as a Lego theme seems to be specific enough but in reality you can build anything using these parts and I personally think that all those creations have place in this subforum. For some people Technic means mechanics, gears and axles, for others it is panels, beams and wheels. I recall seeing someone building flowers using only Technic parts, no mechanics just the parts - I think they could be also here in this forum. As others wrote this place is to unite people with a similar interest and not to divide them into tiny little categories where only people with the exact same interest share their creations. I admire people who has the ability to imagine and create complex mechanics. I like to browse such topics and follow the discussions, but I'll probably never post something like that because Technic for me is different (and I'd never be able to create something similar). For me it is mostly about cars, remote controlled cars as fast as possible, probably because I'm looking for playability and cool look sharing the passion with my 10 year old boy. From this perspective I respect look and speed over complex inner mechanics. If an 8 speed gearbox can bring my car from super-mega-slow all the way up to still-not-faster-than-a-snail then I will simply not use it. I respect the build quality and the effort if someone uses such but I'm not interested in building it. About the look and especially presentation - I'm a long time hobbyist photographer, so presentation is as important for me as the inner workings. I feel pain if I see a great MOC poorly presented and poorly photographed, and I totally understand if something like that does not get frontpaged (which I never check, I have the Technic forum bookmarked). If the aim is to bring people from the front page to this forum then whatever is presented there needs to be good looking and interesting enough to click on it. I don't think we need to compare themes and creations within the Technic world, everyone should be able to find their interest and find similar people to share it. If you're not interested in one topic, then simply ignore it, look for something else that you like. And I agree, we should not praise blindly for the sake of interaction or to expect the same back for our own posts. Constructive criticism is always a good thing and helps to evolve.

@Splat I'm willing to add RC to a set where it is not planned originially by Lego, e.g. I just did it for the 42077 B model. The aim is to use minimal amount of extra parts (apart from the PF components of course). The target audience is general, I had AFOLs and kids building my previous mocs so I'm trying to keep things as detailed as possible. I'll create a photo sequence for now and I'll have a look again to LPub to see and compare the effort needed for digital instructions.

Yep, since my content is not there I cannot report it to Facebook. I also commented on one of the shared videos asking them about this practice, my comment was deleted without an answer soon after...

I'm already done with the motorization of the B model, both with PF motors and a buggy motor variant. Working on a video and instructions in the upcoming days, afterwards I'll focus on the A model. I'll post the progress in the existing 42077 topic, I'm not sure if we need to create a separate topic for the motorization.

It's not exactly the same situation, but I found a lot of popular videos re-uploaded from Youtube to Facebook on Oldlego.com's fb page. There are videos from @Sariel, @nico71, @Samolot, @Jeroen Ottens and others as well. I don't think it is a fair practice to use these videos this way to promote their business (unless they got permission from all creators), they could easily link the YouTube videos on their Fb page if they only wanted to share the creations with their followers.

Thanks guys for your valuable input! I did not consider the photo sequence as the last instructions I created for the Star Wars motors had like ~400 steps and I thought it's a pain to go through that amount of images (and a couple of hundred MBytes to download), that's why I compiled them into a video and shared that way. But for the RC mod it might be significantly less steps, so I'll give it a try. I'm more comfortable with photos/videos than the 3d instructions, it's not about the building part but for some reason could not figure out how to use LPub properly. My motorized C model based on Yoshiny's mod for 42029 is still sitting in a computer folder for like a year now...

Yep, good old GH5 :)

Hi folks! First of all please move/merge this topic if there was already something similar discussed, I did not find anything and it's too technical for the Technic pub I think :) I'm struggling a bit to find the most straightforward way to create instructions for my RC mods. I'm sure you know that creating proper instructions can take way more time than modding a set or creating a moc that's why most people does not spend their precious time on instructions... I'm really willing to share what I'm doing but I'm still looking to find a well balanced method what is reasonably fast to do but also consumable for non-EB members as well. RC mods are particularly tricky because I only change certain parts of the set so it seems to be counterproductive to create a full instruction set from A to Z. Here are the options I found so far with pros/cons: - Digital 3d file with building steps. Pros - all steps can be checked and the model can be fully observed in 3d. Cons - most people are not familiar with LDD and other applications, needs full model to be built in 3d, new sets might have parts missing in the application - Full building instruction set generated from digital 3d file Pros - most detailed and can be understood/used by anyone Cons - very time consuming to make - Step-by-step assembly video Pros - reasonably quick to make, can be used by anyone Cons - not everyone likes to play/pause the videos, lots of unnecessary steps needs to be added from the original instructions - Video about partial disassembly and showing how to add RC components Pros - possibly the quickest to make Cons - needs to have the set assembled first, might not be the easiest to follow I came up with these options, what is your view? What would be the best way to do it, is there anything else I missed?

Your MOC, your design decisions :) BTW if you upload the video to YouTube as "unlisted" then you can still share here but it won't show up in your YouTube feed.

@Myers Lego Technic I was waiting for the sun for a long time to have that strong backlight :) The aperture is a good question, as this is a frame from a video i recorded there's no EXIF data to check, but my guess would be 12mm (24mm equivalent) @ F3.5.

@evortigosa I did not know it either until I tried it :) To stay as close as possible to the trailer with the payload it's better to control both actuators simultaneously. You can check it in my video.

@TheNextLegoDesinger thank you, your photo is also great, has some real menacing look (and very cool moc too)! Here is one shot as a reminder to the nice weather we had not so long ago...

It was a pleasure, many thanks for the great application! Can't wait to test it on the field :)

I really like the mechanism and the design, it looks cool. I don't get the point of the hanging 3L liftarms, they're kind of distracting as they are wobbling there :) If they are representing the antlers then aren't they supposed to be pointing upwards?

@evortigosa that's a neat solution, I see two issues - based on my experience the M motor might be too weak for this purpose (especially if you put anything in the container), and to operate the cranes smoothly you need to control both actuators the same time.

I'd like to share with you today my unboxing, review & speed build of the 42075 First Responder set: The box size is average, the front design show the vehicle in a city environment - not an "action scene" though. The back side shows the features and the B model. The box contains 5 unnumbered bags, the tyres, sticker sheet and surprisingly 2 booklets - instructions for both A and B models. The car is fairly small and despite the size it has several features. HOG steering, rear differential and suspension, opening doors, hood and rear compartement, working 2 cylinder flat engine, working winch and a raisable light tower. Check the video for all the details, here are some additional images: You can find more (and slightly bigger) images in my blog post.

According to the SBrick wiki the max safe operating voltage is 10.8V, the absolute maximum voltage is 11.8V. BuWizz 2.0 in ludicrous mode provides 11.2V, so it's between those 2 values. To be on the safe side I'd avoid running the motors full throttle in ludicrous mode through SBrick.

Great lines, very clever use of all the parts! My favorite is the placement of the mudguard panel :)

No worries, it happens all the time. I managed to build the rear axle of 42069 reversed when I did the my first video about it and didn't even realize, I was actually quite happy how well it goes backwards

Thanks folks, I felt the need to add something to the video as the car itself does not have too many features to show :) I added some images and thoughts in my blog post if you're interested. The pieces left from the A model: @Johnny1360 - I'd call that creative freedom :) Thanks for pointing it out, I always manage to mess up some little details. Maybe it'd be better to make these videos after sleeping and not during the night :)