Berthil

The 80113 is a fantastic set and screams to be modularized. This is my take as a full blown modular from 2 sets plus 469 parts (mainly for tiling). It is NOT a corner modular which made it necessary to redesign it almost completely as the size is different than the 80113 set. A lot of time was spent to use as much parts as possible from the two sets. About 800 parts are left over. With the price of two sets plus additional parts the total price is in the range of the current official modulars but this one has a more detailed interior, all floors are tiled and the back is almost as pretty as the front. The back, for Modular standards a pretty one Free building instructions available on my Rebrickable; https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-171406/Berthil/chinese-restaurant-modular/

A small video of my GBC machines @ LEGO World Utrecht 2023:

It happens, especially when you make/remove steps in between. All building steps should be defined before making the page layout. The only remedy is a backup (which I always make after I worked on instructions) or put in the hours again. And welcome.

Thank you all! The free building instructions are up: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-165470/Berthil/excaliburburg/

My first post here as it is my first Historic build. This is a remake of 70840 Welcome to Apocalypseburg into a Castle theme for a LUG competition (LowLUG, Dutch). After the dust of medieval wars has settled, all that remained were the King Arthur’s Lion Knights and the momument they had build out of the ruins. Excalibur, King Arthur’s tomb, armory shop, blacksmith, torture room, pig farm, watch tower, archery shooting range and hidden real Excalibur is what is left. The old Kings carriage now serves as a chicken run. King Arthur has all of his fingers, Lady Liberty was missing some. An elevator moves up and down Excalibur, the target in the shooting range moves forward and backward. The watch tower and Kings tomb are removable. Video with more details: I have created free building instruction for these 6000 parts, enjoy! https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-165470/Berthil/excaliburburg/

Why don't you create a Bricklink wanted list from your Stud.io file with the build-in 'add to Wanted-List' function and download the XML from Bricklink?

A very good initiative to let the community build such a digital design database of official models under the assumption it will be a free service. I've used a few digital design available here in the Eurobricks thread, a more extensive, structured and up-to-date website would be very good.

Good luck with that list when converting large designs. LDD is pretty much dead right? It still works and relies on volunteers who make 'custom' parts packs and/or LDraw database is used but other than dead LDD itself has no updates since many years. If I'm wrong I apologize. Might as well start with Stud.io which translates one on one to Bricklink (both owned by TLG). It imports LDD files but many require work after that. Next to that use the SKU number (Stock Keeping Unit) or ID number, it holds color and part and can't go wrong with that on Bricklink and TLG Pick a Brick

Thanks all! Actually I was already busy with the loop idea in a GBC before the 10303 was developed and sold. As I wanted to keep all tracks LBG I didn't want to use the loop pieces from 10303 but would have been much easier to use these. The sideways technique can been seen in other rollercoasters with a loop, especially rollercoaster before the 10303 was sold. I haven't seen it in a GBC. It was a gamble if everything would run smooth enough without having to go very high with the spiral but it worked out well.

First post updated with a fully mechanical Rollercoaster GBC. Happy with the final result as It took a few designs because there is a lot of variation in how the Carts behave. Turning a discontinuous variation into a continuous process was not easy.

In Pybricks I use the run_untill_stalled command to calibrate. Store motor angle/rotations on either end and keep track of them or reset the angle and don't go past it. Pybricks uses Python so may translate one on one to your Raspberry, not sure if your Raspberry would need the Pybricks firmware installed on the hubs. Pybricks has example projects and commands documented and it should be possible to operate the crane with Pybricks firmware and standard PU remote only (no devices).

If you have the CSV parts list from Stud.io (or Bricklink XML via Bricklink wanted list) you can create a parts list on Rebrickable from it. This parts list can be exported to a HTML table or HTML Grid with correct images. I haven't tried but the HTML should be saved as an HTML page and import in Excel or even copied from the clipboard to Excel. Custom parts are custom parts or parts not available so need to be handled seperately as neither Bricklink or Rebrickable will recognize them. Could be that Rebrickable will show the correct part color even if not available. Sound like you are making a MOC to sell to a Brick cloning company that has all colors, otherwise it would make no sense to have parts in a parts list if not available. If my advise is of use to you, remember me when you make your first million please.

I would welcome a Model Team contest, this is the 'LEGO Technic, Mindstorms, Model Team and Scale Modeling' forum. Technic we had a lot, Mindstorms has been discontinued, Model Team and Scale Modeling with a good combination of Technic and System remains.

Jury categories are clear at the start but as a builder you can deviate from that to have more fun building because you like more what you make. The reward for a having fun can come afterwards when public voting choses their categories they find important and if they are the same as your fun categories, you will move up the order depending on the jury/public voting ratio (preferably set at the start). Sticking 100% to the top categories might bring you glory but could be less fun as you are building in categories you find less challenging and fun. Models might also look alike a lot. You want the last and I want the first so don't tell me I don't get it. In the latest competition there was no public voting and I have the feeling there won't be in the future. There was also not much transparency in the jury voting. With the category system we can have transparency upfront and public voting without much extra effort and keep having fun. I guess it would be possible to replace the category voting by your 'awesomeness' voting for every model. But when 50 models, this would be a lot of work for public voters or we go to the previous system where they can pick their top 5 or top 10. In the category system they would only have to rate categories once and the result is tied to the jury voting. I'm not participating in the discussion anymore as I have made my point. I will wait what the next contest will bring, it is not in our hands but in the hands of Jim and Jury.

Probably also a misunderstanding. The contest categories are fixed by the jury at the start of the contest and not the end. Probably as it is now but a bit more detailed via the categories. Public voting would be in those categories and how many points is set by the jury per model and category after closure of the contest. So the categories are known upfront but of course how many points per model per category after the models are finished. Even a third multiplier could be introduced by category order of the contest (preferably defined at the start). With the three multipliers there should be enough point differentiation along the predefined contest categories. Let me do a full scenario for a contest with three distinctive categories and three model entries to keep it simple, because I feel I'm not good at explaining the system. TC26 Technic Powerboat Contest with categories in order of jury importance (multiplier in brackets): Jury Categories: Speed on water (3) Maneuverability on water (2) Looks (1) It is clear at the start of the contest that the jury is looking for fast models that turn well, looks are less important. So you shouldn't make a Technic Titanic that looks great but is slow and can't turn if you want to win by jury. Of course if that is what you want to make to have fun it is no problem, you can make what you like. End of contest and models A, B and C are finished; Model A, moderate speed, high maneuverability, looks are okay Model B, clearly highest speed, maneuverability acceptable, looks totally absent Model C, low speed, moderate maneuverability, looks 10 out of 10 with a mini Technic Titanic. 4 jury members score 1 to 10 in the categories for the three models using their own interpretation. This could mean one jury could give model B 10 points for speed but the other jury 9 points because that jury thinks it is still not fast enough. I created the above matrix in an Excel with the three models, three categories and 4 fictional jury votes from 1 to 10 for each model in each category. I won't bother you with the details but each jury vote fluctuaties between the categories because of personal preference and interpretation. The jury totals for each model and category are (where list number is category); A=22 , B=39, C=3 A=39, B=16, C=16 A=18, B=1, C=40 Totals for each model; A=79, B=56, C=59 WITHOUT the category multiplier Model A wins, Model C 2nd, Model B third. This was probably the jury voting method in the last contest But now we multiply with category multiplier in this simple example, probably we would have 10 categories in a real contest. Calculation could stop here and end of contest. multiplier 3; A=66, B=117, C=9 multiplier 2; A=16, B=32, C=32 multiplier 1; A=18, B=1, C=40 Totals for each model; A=162, B=150, C=81 (looks has multiplier 1 which is no multiplier, probably avoid category with multiplier 1). WITH multiplier Model B moved to 2nd place because speed has highest multiplier as it was most important in the competition, but not enough to win from model A which had the best mix of speed and maneuverability. Voting could stop here and this would be the end result without public voting. Now it gets interesting, public voting was in parallel with jury voting so model order was not known and also doesn't matter and each voter rates the categories they find important. We have 5 voters with category number and score between 1 and 10. They look at the overal competition with all entries and decide what they find important, list number is the voter voter finds straight line speed very important because voter is a drag racer; 1=10, 2=1, 3=6 voter is a creative designer and find looks very important; 1=4, 2=3, 3=10 voter looks at technical solutions and knows maneuverability in water is hardest to achieve but also finds looks important; 1=2; 2=10, 3=8 voter just agrees with the jury and should be rated accordingly; 1=10; 2=9, 3=8 voter finds everything technical not important and just looks at how it looks; 1=1; 2=1; 3=10 These category votes can be used as percentage or multiplier on jury votes with or without the jury category multiplier. If jury wants more effect on the outcome take scores with jury category multiplier. In this example I will take voter percentage of each jury category vote without jury multiplier for each model where 10 points is 100%, 9 points is 90% etc. So model A had 22 jury points for speed, voter 1 has 10 points for speed meaning voter 1 awards 100% of jury votes to speed meaning 22 points for model A. Model C had 40 points for looks and voter 4 has an 8 for looks so Model C gets 80% of 40 points = 32 points. Etcetera for all voter categorie percentages and models. Outcome after public voting where list number is voter with model total according to category voting (because of percentage we are getting decimals now); A=36.7, B=41.2, C=28.6 A=38.5, B=21.4, C=46.0 A=57.8, B=24.6, C=48.6 A=71.5, B=54.2, C=49.4 A=24.1, B=6.5, C=41.9 Totals (rounded): A= 229, B=148, C=215 So after public voting Model C has moved to 2nd place because there were voters that found looks important. Still model A is 1st. Now add jury votes to public votes, again this can be done with multiplied jury votes or not. Without jury multiplier order is A-C-B, with jury multiplier it is still A-B-C with a very close tie between B and C. Contest organizer and/or jury can decide to use different multipliers, or even a jury/public voting ratio, but voting system would be the same. I created an Excel that did all the calculations and most of the time was typing this, the Excel was quickly created. In the end there would be categories with a multiplier rating by jury, jury category voting per model and category, public voting per category and an Excel that brings it all together including decisions on multipliers and jury/public voting ratio.

I wanted to keep it less work for the jury by proposing a winner by jury in each category but it would indeed be better if the jury would score each entry for each category like you propose. With a multiplying factor all public votes can be applied to all entry categories resulting in applying 100% voting for all entries in all categories with jury voting for all entries as guidance by jury multiplying factor. So if a model gets 10 in a creativity category through jury voting this is multiplied by public voting for creativity. So when one public vote has 8 points for creativity, voter would hand out eighty points to that entry in creativity category. This can be applied to all entries and all categories and all votes and jury only has to vote all (self defined) categories for all entries and voters will only give their category vote. I don't think there will be many entries with the same amount of points in this system, of course with enough voters. But since voters do not have to look at every entry in detail (the jury does), and everybody knows the categories they like (and don't need to tweak a lot for every contest), I hope there will be more voters than usual. Everybody happy, may be even you. If not clear I could work out a tangible contest example in more detail. If nobody is interested I save myself the work and await the next contest.

If I remember well 500 pages was mentioned by someone else so I'm not extrapolating, I'm downsizing. I never said you want a 100 page lawyer document

If a model wins two categories by jury it probably deserves to win so it wil get the points by category by public voters of two categories. I'm just trying to make the voting less biased and easier for everyone with this proposal. Sure it is my personal opinion until adapted by everyone. Seems like you also are giving your (big) share of personal opinion so I don't know why this is suddenly a 'just ' when I have one. Thanks! Seems like a compliment coming from you. As a final statement for me in this discussion, in the end Jim and Jury decide what will happen in the future (or with the TC25 test as I proposed to add public voting to TC25). I'm glad to help if that is what the contest and Jim would help time wise and meanwhile will be looking forward to the next competition.

@SaperPL It is unfortunate you always see problems and not the benefits as this comes closest to what is practically possible and what you are after without creating that 100 page lawyer document. You may be have misunderstood, people are not voting for entries but for categories within the contest without knowing what entry has won per category as jury and public voting run in parallel. So they cannot dump on one entry. This system gives the jury the ability to compose the top entry list with models they want and public voting can change the final order of entries and vote without much effort but personal entry preference is lost. The proposed system with voting for your most important categories is NOT making everything else equal. Again an example. I find creativity important so that would be my category to get 10 points. So the most creative model according to the jury would get my 10 points. But if I find that in a next contest I find aesthetics more important, I give that category 10 points and creativity 9. Very flexible, jury driven and not much work to vote. This proposed system is the first tangible voting system I have seen in the whole discussion to be honest. All other remarks seem to convey personal opinion and preference but for the most without a proposal for a voting system that could work for jury and public voters. This voting system enables public voters to vote for WHAT they find important and not why they find a specific model important to win for whatever reason. As a test it would be possible to add public voting to TC25 WITHOUT changing the current outcome, just as a test. The jury will let me know their categories and their voting (I don't need to know who is behind what vote), I setup an Excel and we start public voting according to the jury categories and I enter in the Excel. No extra work for @Jim or jury. We can discuss the outcome and even use the Excel for future contests if that would become the new voting system. If there are not many public category votes we can also conclude this is not the way forward. Contest participants can also vote without problems of course as they don't know the final jury entry list.

A lot of discussion here and I shall try to make it even more complicated :) When I look at myself voting I follow progress topcis and when looking at the entry topic, I already know what my favorites are. The personal reasoning behind these favorites is not carved in stone by rules, it is based on many factors and each contest different. What if public voting would not be on entries but on contest rules (or category) and you only have to vote what categories you find important? The jury will rate contest entries on agreed categories and cross reference them with public category voting Simplified example: For whatever contest jury has determined categories are complexity of functions and model creativity (real contest would have more categories). Participants know what to design because of clear categories. Jury rates final entries on categories and winner is the one with highest total score for the two mentioned categories. Point 1 to 3 is pretty much how TC23 went if I'm not mistaken but now it gets interesting with public voting on top of the jury voting. Public votes what they find their most important categories and these can be different from the jury categories. In the this example I would give creativity 10 points and functions 5. Normally may be there are 8 rules and you can give 8 to 1 point on what category you find important. Your points go to the jury winner of every category. So if model A has the highest jury score on creativity your points for creativity go to that entry. In my example 10 points. Winner of functions category gets my 5 points. So voters do not even need to look at all the entries in detail, the jury has done that and public points are distributed accordingly. This way jury determines category winners and public voting can still influence the end outcome by what category they find important in the contest. It also rules out any form of rigging. Both jury and public voting run in parallel. I know this suggestion will never make it as it would largely rule out the earlier mentioned personal reasoning for personal favorites but this would be a system of combined and unambiguous jury AND public voting! It would even be possible to create one list 10 categories the same for EVERY contest and rate them for every contest differently by the jury. So participants will know upfront what the jury finds important in the contest. Public voters can have a saved list of of these 10 categories they update for every contest voting round which would not be much work. If 10 is too limited jury could add 'wildcard' categories which public voters would give points in their voting next to the 10 fixed ones.

Congratulations to the winners! I made myself a note to build as much functions behind Technic panels for the next contest/challenge because that seems to be valued the most here. The last 2 contests I was 4th with novel ideas but not enough functions or panels. A controllable spaceship on strings while the contest was to build a spaceship. The Barcode truck I don't have to explain. I'm proud of the 4th place in such a competitive field with great builds but I have to find a way to transform my creativity for new ideas into motivation for builds that are expected here.

.

I like your building, especially the left side with te SNOT and louvres. I watched the video, you have put a tremendous amount of effort into building a huge city, very impressive. With buildings like this you are putting a lot more quality into it.

For a building to look good the building needs texture, next to a good overall design of course. Texture means windows and doors half stud or whole stud offset to the wall, next to adding details like columns and plants. Changing colors and wall offsets can also creates texture. Real life buildings can look rather dull and texture brings them to life. Many MOC designers use SNOT techniques to create whole wall sections by placing plates and bricks sideways, and/or put tiles on the walls. A good designed wall can take up 3 to 4 studs this way. This you will learn by just doing and looking and techniques others have used. I have all official modulars and few have these advanced techniques. When they have these techniques, it is mostly in small portions. Still the official modulars is a good way to start if you have no experience and the instructions are readily available, also Stud.io builds are available. Try to start with the older ones and work your way up, this way you see the design progress TLG has made themselves over the years, also by creating new brick molds. I've designed a few successful buildings and some were licensed out to publish boxed sets with good instructions. Some designs were unfortunately stolen. I always start with the outside in Stud.io because everything needs to fit together. After that the floor plan with the available room that is left. When designing the front there is of course already an idea of what will be inside but not a definite floor plan and no furniture design yet. The back also needs attention but can have less texture. Good luck with your project and most importantly, have fun.

It happens to be I have two dogs at home at the moment. One is our own Chihuahua which we have 'ordered' because we like his father very much. Turns out the son is a bit different and more like the mother, still a sweet dog but asking for attention a lot. The other dog is a Labradoodle staying here as a guest. We didn't raise that dog, it was raised as a baby and so it acts like one. It is asking a lot of attention and mostly in a negative way by barking. So I've chosen to ignore the barking and only give the dog attention when it acts in a positive way. That corrected its behavior in a positive way a lot. It think we need to do the same here. Ignore the barking until behavior improves.