Ankoku
-
Posts
1,062 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Everything posted by Ankoku
-
Finally got the instructions finished and you can find them here: ( The instructions PDF will take a few seconds before it starts downloading. Be patient, it will get there. No need to click it multiple times. ) http://www.kanatta.com/GBC/CupToCup/ There is a single set of instructions (PDF), but it comes in two versions. The main version, which uses less common pieces, which are more aesthetically pleasing. Then part lists for a version which uses more common pieces and colours. I have included BSX part lists for both versions and BSX part lists which only contain the pieces needed to upgrade the previous version to this one. The previous version, BSX part list etc. can be found here: The instructions will allow you to create the Cup-to-Cup Type 1 module which you see in Akiyuki event videos from 2013 onwards. I don't think I would have been able to do it without the additional photo provided by Akiyuki and obviously, it builds on the work done by @djm and @Blakbird It is not a faithful copy of Akiyuki's module. The differences are: I changed the hopper so balls won't get stuck behind the spiral lift. I left the support used to get the balls from the lift to the first cup unchanged from the very first version. It works fine, so didn't see the need for a change. The offramp has been redesigned to work with this version. Akiyuki dispensed with the offramp in 2013, using a separate module to do it. The original offramp doesn't work with this version. I tried to keep it similar. Feel free to rework it though. There are some minor changes to the spiral lift to make it work better. It has been good to get this done, as I never liked the motion of original design. Having the motor so far from the cup-to-cup mechanism meant that it wasn't as smooth as you might like. Which is why I think Akiyuki changed it. It is called v1.2 since I class the original grey version as being v1.0 and the yellow version as being v1.1. v1.2 denotes the change in drive mechanism. This has not been event tested. I would advise testing/modifying as required before using at an event over a prolonged period of time. -
Well, with Christmas coming up and an Invisible Lift to build, along with a bit of a prod, I finally finished off the Cup-to-Cup v1.6. All steps are sorted and new off-ramp implemented. Will see if I can get the instructions done over the weekend. Will create two parts lists. One with less common, more aesthetically pleasing pieces, the other with more common pieces. The new off-ramp is nothing to be proud of. I tried to keep it as similar to what people already have as I could. Also, it created from what parts I had available at the time :P That said, it is less bendy that the original.
-
GBC General Discussion
Ankoku replied to Jim's topic in LEGO Technic, Mindstorms, Model Team and Scale Modeling
Quite cool! -
GBC General Discussion
Ankoku replied to Jim's topic in LEGO Technic, Mindstorms, Model Team and Scale Modeling
Great to see someone working on that module. It is a great one for spectators! Glad you took the time to do the digital file for it! Good work! -
Mac is basically Linux and Linux runs on PCs. Many Macs computers also run Windows. So, the analogy holds.
-
I am sure LEGO is all too aware of what the clone brands are doing. You don't get to where they are without keeping tabs on the competition. Mega Bloks was a big competitor at one point. They got things like the World of Warcraft license. That said, I didn't like how they converted that license into sets. Just like I don't like LEGO doing large, specific pieces which can't easily be used for other stuff (The front of some LEGO trains), it was far worse with Mega Bloks sets. Also, at that time, their bricks were worse quality. Unsurprisingly, Blizzard is now working with LEGO with things like Overwatch. If there suddenly was a brand which offered a superior product, rather than a cheaper clone, I am sure we would all be very aware of it. Regardless of what forums we frequented. LEGO would also be well aware. That said, I have yet to see it or anything close. There was an interesting one with clone motors which had some aspects of them which were better than the LEGO ones, since they don't have to deal with legacy/compatibility issues. That said, they stuck them in casings identical to LEGOs, including the controller, which is just depressing and puts you off them. Much like S-Brick and Buzzwizz, create a good product, your own design and stop being shady copiers and forums like this will be interested and will be happy to talk about such things. As it stands though, most of the time, the cloners are just cheaper and copying what LEGO does, even packaging style wise. Which doesn't endear you to them. As I said before, if you are a PC owner, you are well aware of Macs and vice versa. That said, if you are on a Mac forum, you probably don't want to be talking about PC and that desire isn't making you blind to either their existence or their pros and cons.
-
Not really. It is not different from having a PC forum and people taking every opportunity to tell you how great Apple computers are. It is the difference between a computer forum and a PC forum. I am sure there are probably some construction block forums out there where you can talk about clone brands to your hearts content. That said, this is a LEGO forum and many of the posters are LEGO purists, regardless of LEGOs policy on the matter. So the general reaction is exactly what I would expect it to be. You also have to remember that this was a thread asking whether a specific model had been copied or designed in house, the latter being the case. That is all. It didn't take many posts before everyone was advertising various other LEGO clone companies and stating how great they are. This happens time and time again, which is why there are even rules about it. That is what people get fed up with. Again, I am sure there are non-LEGO forums where such things can be discussed. For me, I buy things like S-Brick, but that is it.
-
If you look at the rules for the Ideas stuff, they only accept stuff which isn't already licensed, as adding to an existing license is too much hassle. Also, I don't think they would allow any set to use a license which hasn't been through LEGO's own in-house teams like Ideas stuff does. So as I mentioned, it would most likely be stuff which doesn't have a license connected to it.
-
Having the different parts of the instructions have different version numbers is very confusing. Since the top one is 2.3, it makes you want to find the 2.3 version of part 4. Also, on the last page of part 4, it might be worth adding a version history, so people know what has changed and can adjust their builds. e.g. a short description of what changed and what pages those changes are on.
-
That is good. I am just wondering if they want to cash-in on stuff that goes viral. e.g. The baby Yoda LEGO creation would be a good example of this, if it wasn't for the IP issues. Would be interesting if something became popular, they could just add a "Buy Now!". Then you don't have the hassle of trying to find all the parts, in the correct colours etc. I don't see that as being a realistic proposition, since LEGO and the creator would never work fast enough to viably cash in on it. That said, it would be an interesting world where AFOL's could create instructions for stuff and you can just buy the set from LEGO. Which is in essence what happened with the BL event. That way, the creator gets a small cut and LEGO sells more bricks. Could be akin to a KickStarter for LEGO. Where sets which get enough pre-orders, get turned into real buyable sets. The bit which bothers me though, is that the BL event seemed very.... manual. You would hope the process would be far more automated in the creating of the sets. Ultimately, were LEGO buying the user base more than anything else? They may not care about the sellers and are happy, for the most part, to just let that side of things carry on as it. What they are interested in, is all the people visiting BL and how they can sell to them. e.g. I visit BL and here far more than I visit LEGO.com. Maybe that is what they are interested in having access to. e.g. us.
-
Said video:
-
Realistically though, how many extra sets are they going to sell because of that? I don't think it would be enough for LEGO to be too interested in. Did any stats come out in regards to how many sets BL sold during the event they did in collaboration with LEGO? I do wonder if that was a test LEGO did in relation to buying BL.
-
From what I remember LEGO saying, in regards to guns, it is a public perception thing. e.g. people become outraged by the idea of mini-figures with guns. If it is an IP, in a way, it isn't so much their problem, so they don't worry about Overwatch/Star Wars. The general public don't mind the Star Wars stuff etc. having futuristic guns. I think, where they worry about public perception, is when the gun is a replica of real guns past and present. Which is what Brick Arms does a fair amount of. I honestly don't know if they would do an Aliens IP, since the M41A Pulse Rifle looks a bit like normal guns. Bit too close for their risk analysis. Also, with IP, they seem to have a different set of rules. e.g. mini-figures are always yellow, unless it is an IP, then real skin tones are used. With Brick Arms, at least you can see that this was an established position for LEGO and it is understandable that Brick Arms stuff can't remain on BL because of that position. It makes sense. Obviously, this is unfortunate for Brick Arms and what they do is important for to AFOL community and their lack of presence on BL will hit their sales.
-
True enough, but there is also the question of power and control. So some of what they spent may relate to that. Now they are the biggest fish in the resale/reseller platform market, which means they can influence it. If you think about it, with this purchase, they take a very similar position to Amazon. Amazon controls the platform that everyone sells on. Amazon is also the biggest seller on said platform. Which is something regulators are looking into. BrickLink revenue is tiny in comparison to The LEGO Group. That said, LEGO could potentially becomes the biggest seller on the platform they now own.
-
I don't think it is an Armageddon thing. That said, it is right to highlight concerns and if I was a seller right now, I would have concerns. Certainly going to hit the 3rd party manufacturers. Maybe they want more control over the reseller platforms as 3D printers etc. become cheaper. For my purposes, having LEGO make sure everything on BL was official LEGO is a good thing. There are a lot of people where that is bad news though. As someone else mentioned, what happens if they regulate against the reselling of licensed pieces? Their replies to questions by The Brothers Brick didn't exactly inspire confidence. e.g. although they have to say "there is no conflict of interest", it still isn't good to read it when you know the conflict of interest is there. It will certainly be interesting to see how it all pans out and the acquisition and what they do with it will certainly be telling as to how they want to move forward in this regard.
-
From what I remember, TLG is a private/family owned profit driven corporation. As for creating an alternative, lots of people seem to forget that BrickOwl exists, which is part of the problem for anyone creating a replacement. Unless you get all the sellers to move over and have them offer competitive prices, it will fail. One of the thing whichs always bugged me, was that TLG never made an attempt to improve things like B&Ps. One bit which hasn't been mentioned is that the sellers on BL tend to buy up LEGO which is on sale in high street shops, online, retailer returns etc. For all of those retailers, this is a good thing. It means they clear their stock. For LEGO, it is a good thing as it means retailers aren't left with excess stock, which makes them more sheepish on order numbers going forward. I don't think LEGO would want to disrupt that aspect of the 3rd party market. That market provides a place where sets that didn't sell go. In a perfect world for the consumer, it would be great to have LEGO as a seller on BL. When you have a look at LEGOs stock numbers for certain parts, they are swimming in them. At the moment, I buy from both BL and B&Ps depending on which is cheaper for each piece. B&Ps can work well for all the random bits I need as they have them all and thus I don't have to get them via lots of different sellers, e.g. postage costs. Also, some pieces which are not common in sets, but are in high demand, end up being cheaper on B&Ps. That said, I would see that as being bad for the resellers and you need the resellers to be able to make their profit off the less common/high demand pieces. Their profits in part, come from the convenience of doing it all on one site. Doing it between BL and B&Ps is a pain.
-
I don't think BL would ever sell their sales data to LEGO. Data these days is often the worth of the company more than anything else. The only way LEGO was likely to get the data was by buying the company. I remember a presentation a while back where the LEGO Group was suggesting they were okay with things like 3rd party gun sellers, as it was something LEGO couldn't do themselves. I think LEGO has to remove that stuff from BL and anything not made by LEGO by default. That is the sacrifice from BL side of things. e.g. I don't seem them actively trying to stop the sale of guns etc. elsewhere. If we actually knew what they paid for BL, it would answer a few questions.
-
This is a good point.
-
The bit which gets me, is that for however long B&P has existed, they have never attempted to make it easier to use. The session timeout aspect of it is terrible. The way you add items is terrible, the shopping cart aspect of it is terrible. The worst one is when it errors passing over the order to S@H and you lose the whole thing. You are always left feeling that it is something they felt they had to provide, rather than wanted to or wanted to to make a profit. It doesn't seem a revenue stream they are interested in. So then why does BrickLink become one they are interested in? Which is essentially more at odds with their business than their on B&P? Do they actually care about Stud.IO, considering they gave up on their own? (I think that is correct). I can see them being very interested in owning the data. Even the MOC selling thing they did on BL last year seems odd considering they have their own IDEAS platform. Maybe LEGO has had a change in perspective on all of this, but to be honest, their actions to date suggest they have had little interest.
-
It is somewhat disheartening to see people use the thread to talk about how great X, Y or Z LEGO clone is, when the original point of the thread was to see whether a model was a copy of a MOC. It feels like any such thread gets hijacked. As the original poster, feel free to lock it.
-
I'm a LEGO purist, so I have no desire to advertise this stuff. That said, the car looked so like some of what you see on here or a CrowKiller design, I thought it was worth raising, just in case. I don't follow the car stuff enough to know if it was someone's MOC or not. Glad to see it isn't. Also worth knowing who the LEPIN replacement is, so I can warn people.
-
My main point of creating this post, was to make sure no one's design was being nicked, like LEPIN used to do with the things like the Avtoros Shaman 8x8. As long as it is their own design, the post has served it's purpose for me.
-
Came across this, is this somebodies MOC or have they actually designed something themselves?
-
GBC General Discussion
Ankoku replied to Jim's topic in LEGO Technic, Mindstorms, Model Team and Scale Modeling
Some nice original stuff! -
GBC General Discussion
Ankoku replied to Jim's topic in LEGO Technic, Mindstorms, Model Team and Scale Modeling
I generally hold off posting if I know the person posts here. Problem is, often peoples username on here are nothing like their YouTube usernames. Also, it is good to post their thread here on this one so it is kind of catalogued. Otherwise it gets lost in the history of threads on here. Thanks for letting me know.