Bublehead

@Paul Boratko, that gave me good laugh. There are a LOT of things I wouldn't do either... there are things TLG does that I wouldn't do. But the one thing they do do is create a new part to solve a specific engineering challenge and that just seems like cheating but when you are Lego, you write the rules.

@grum64, thank you for the support. And I will keep MOCing, and I will keep posting my MOCs here and I will take the criticism people deal out in stride and make changes as I see fit. What I'm never going to do is use the words "game changing" ever again when describing my MOC in my titles, and I am not going to toot my horn about any aspect of the build. I am going to present the features, the inspirations, the mindset and let the wolves devour the poor corps of my creation. With "passion" ;-)

I went and looked at the "document" on legal v.s. Illegal and I must say, yes that is a nice guideline of what a billion dollar toy company would follow as a corporate mantra. Does it apply to MOCs? Nope. It only applies to official TLG offerings. Now is it a mantra I follow when building my MOCs? Absolutely. Did I violate any of those rules for my Twirl and Hurl? Not for any function, only for form. There are two places on my MOC that use non-clicking pins in holes and both were done to create a certain look, not create any working function. I will leave it to the legality police to find them. There are two uses of a piece that required a little "help" getting them in place and there is a perfectly legal solution that requires no "help", but I went with the illegal use due to being symmetrical and I know I can use the legal method without any compromise in functionality if I am arrested by the Legality Police. (Rolls eyes). My general take on legal v.s. Illegal parts use is this- for functionality, no violations. For look and feel, all bets are off depending on the outcome. Does it make it look more real, or more cool, then Ok. If it stresses a part till it is damaged, that is not cool. Not okay but acceptable if it is simply a pin left in compression because pins are a consumable in my mind when used this way. But that presentation was mostly a system is not 100% compatible with Technic guideline for people who want to use Technic parts in system builds and vice versa. It does reveal the thinking of what TLG feels are building standards to be followed by their designers, but those rules apply only to employees of TLG, not to us AFOLs making MOCs. I try and follow the rules and do when creating a working function, but I don't let the Legality Police control my builds.

I want to thank all the posters in this thread for their comments and opinions. It seems I may have waded into the swamp of an underlying controversy that has been brewing, maybe for some time, not sure. But what is evident is this is a very passionate group of AFOLs with a lot of opinions on the aspects of the hobby. I am hearing one theme that seems to be at odds here is illegal use of parts and unconventional methods (techniques not embraced in official TLG sets) and people being the "official TLG" police. Another theme I am hearing is "unbalanced" criticism and praise, and. third theme is that people are expecting recognition for something and not receiving it and feeling disenfranchised. I will be honest... I am not that critical of anybody's MOC except my own. And it is human nature to defend it when it is criticized, or to complain if we feel it is being harshly judged. It is also human nature to be passionate about the creation you have brought for show and tell... and yet our teachers didn't let the kids attack or be critical of other children's show and tell subjects because that was fair play. What I am sensing here is we (the royal WE here) seem to have lost the sense of "fair play" and the bounds of human decency when we are being "passionate" about our hobby. To those who think I am expecting them to remember my build style and creative viewpoint when creating my MOCs, well that is an absurd assumption that I am expecting people to do that. I commented that I would appreciate comments on how my MOC is or is not like a real flagship set and that was my focus when I build and that is how I want it to be judged, as if it was an official TLG offering. I got comments, praise, and criticism that I felt was imbalanced due to my brash and arrogant and inflammatory and in hind sight foolish first post. I called it out because I felt it was not being critical of my MOC, but was being critical of me. And is still at the heart of my passion about defending myself to those who felt my debut was arrogant, shamelessly self promoting, and I was trying to claim I am better than anyone else. That was not my intent in the least. My enthusiasm for my MOC was my only driving force, and unfortunately people in here mistook that as bravado and arrogance. I am certainly going to change the way I present my next MOC, and I promise that it will land with gentle thud so as not to upend the apple carts of all the overly "passionate" AFOLs in here.

@Carsten Svendsen, I have thick enough skin for criticism, I just needed to understand why it all seemed so critical from the general forum aspect, which turns out we have a lot of experts with strong opinions on Mocs... which is good.

Let me say, first, thank you for pointing me to your MOC, and second, I must admit, didn't expect this level of engineering in what at first would seem a very ordinary power tool. Interesting bit of engineering, well done with the parts at hand. Keep up the good work. I still remember the thrill of getting a new set wasn't all based on building the new model but being able to build all the mocs that the parts would let me build from them.

But was it a bullocks set because it was a poor model, or was it a bullocks set because it didn't play well? My argument would be it was a very interesting mechanism and it did fit the bill of an RC set, it had playability but lacked a balance with also being a well designed model. It is not a crowd pleaser when it comes to the Disney barfed color scheme, or the fact it looked like a Hummer mated with a Unimog and this was the still birth that resulted. But I digress into a review of the 42070, but I bought it just the same, which is a weakness of mine... one tends to get a little nervy when they haven't built a flagship set in a while, no matter how offensive the model.

Some people keep naughty magazines under their mattresses. I kept the latest Lego Shop at Home catalog under mine.

@Paul Boratko, I think the misunderstanding for me is that the people here have a different set of values than myself when it comes to creating models. My focus is more on creating a great play set, not a great model, which is TLG's focus as well. I am a creator of toys. I make things that make children smile, wonder, and imagine. I am not out to create the best model, or the best representation of a certain vehicle or the best super car (your forte and skill, I do attest to, because years ago you argued that stud-less was the future... and you were right). So what comes off as super critical in my mind, is really people offering advice on how to make it a better model, from many viewpoints, but that is not what interests me. Tell me how to make it a better toy? And I will listen all day. And I know there will be people who will ask what's the difference? So let me explain... when people discuss official Lego Technic sets, they tend to be very critical from a modeling point of view. This isn't realistic, that isn't to scale, this doesn't represent a real world vehicle, It has a V-6 and Brand X don't have V-6 motors they have straight 6's... But the designers don't really care about that as much, and neither do I... The question is will a child play with it and do they think it is cool? - enough so to pester their parents for a full year and a half until they buy it for them for their birthday? I thought people would appreciate the thought, time and skill it took to create a set so engrossing (to a child) that it was worthy of being a Flagship Technic set, albeit one slightly over the top. What I got was advice critical of the model, and nothing about it's playability. So I want to apologize to the critics, and fellow builders if my models don't live up to the hype of a good model, because that is not what I focus on. My focus is on playability, functionality, durability, reliability, and ease of operation. I like designing toys for children, so please keep that in mind when viewing my MOCs. BH

Yes, mine has been harping on the fact that I have taken over the dining room table with my Twirl and Hurl... which when displayed does a good job of monopolizing a good 3/4 of it.

@Leonardo da Bricki I understand completely my dear friend... when I bought my first Technic set, I spent every penny I had on it at the time. And there was no internet or Bricklink or any brick aggregation going on out there. You needed a brick, you had to buy the complete set it came in. Been there, done that, a lot. Spent a lot of money I shouldn't have on it too. But even now in my later years, when my discretionary cash flow has grown to make it a bit easier to get the bricks I need, I still have to watch it. ABS plastic is an addictive substance.

Ok, after reading many threads and many posts in this forum, I finally figured out what is missing from around here. And don't get me wrong, its not something you can attribute or pin down to any individual or groups thereof. I'm going to call it "Childish Wonderment". And I am going to give you a definition of it that most will understand. Konajra's ship models. They are truly amazing builds. They are somehow magical in their presentation, the details, the skill. You look at them and are caught in a moment of "Childish Wonderment". That is the element on the periodic table of elements labeled Cw and has an atomic weight of fairies wings and gnome dust. What I think has happened is we have been so saturated by this element from all the amazing creators out there that we become immune to its affects and so we have become hyper critical of every MOC that comes along. I remember when people got excited when TLG's Technic models where displayed and brought to brick fairs and gatherings, and now they tell you, don't even think about displaying them or bringing them... they are no longer considered "cool enough" for all the AFOLs who go to these things. And I think that is evident even here. I've seen some pretty impressive MOCs and the comments can come off like the Russian judge at the Olympics...(no disrespect to Russians, but here in the States, the Russian judge was always seen as the most critical). I get constructive criticism, which is funny when you think about the fact we play with a "construction" toy. But this is where we seem to have gotten so quick to judge and discount all the hard work that goes into these creations. Has it gotten so bad that we need to justify every "gear click", tire rubbing sound, motor groan, or surface gap that you see in our videos? What has happened to the Childish Wonderment of a new MOC? And why the ban on self promotion in our own threads? Why is there an aversion for somebody tooting their own horn? In other forums I have been involved in, things never seemed so serious, and so stifling to creativity. I understand people get tired of dealing with bravado and inflated claims, but I feel that my gaff when starting my MOC thread has really soured this community towards me and my skills. When will people go back to just being amazed at the MOCs and exhibit that childish wonderment once again? Just some food for thought... BH

I only cannibalize TLG sets, never a MOC. But I do "borrow" pieces until the Bricklink order comes in

I have had my last MOC on my brain for 25 years... but I have purged the need to build it now I have more ideas in my mind, but all my MOCs will have some kind of neat working feature, wether it's realistic or not, but mostly I try bring real world functionality to something. Which is why I don't like faked functionality. Don't bother showing me some kind of massive cement mixer MOC unless it really mixes something, and using bricks as a medium is allowable. So your cement truck better mix 1x1 round plates and spit them out when reversed... or maybe pancake batter... something at least. Happy Building. BH

Drastic, but I understand the sentiment... unfortunately once I get invested in a model, I usually never rip it apart. My brother still has my old modified Flagship sets... just can't bear to let the creativity die on the vine like that.

So true... so true. Worst place in the world is to see a solution and lack the bricks to bring it to fruition.

Ok, quick question, what is the longest time between finishing a moc and going back and adding to it? I understand that MOCs are never really finished, but how long does something have to fester before you grab the bricks and make that change? Do you have to consciously turn off the creative fountain and force yourself to call a MOC finished? After finishing up my rebuild of the Twirl and Hurl's front axle, I thought I was done... but then I realized while sitting there looking at it, I could add a sign that folds down when the ride opens and started envisioning it in my minds eye. Unfortunately I suddenly realize, this could be a sign AND a platform extension that makes the platform seem more complete since it fits the actual diameter of the ride's circular motion. Both sides added a total of 150 bricks to the model to add 6 panels of platform extension, 3 per side. The model didn't need the signs/extensions, yet I feel compelled to add them. Do you let the creativity flow or do you have to "make it stop" and cut it off? Or do you push the envelope and add just one more do-dad? I'm curious to hear from some of the master builders here.

For general parts, there is no doubt that is a good price. I paid $199 and $140 for the two I own, one built as BWE, the other went into my parts bins. When you unbag all the parts and lay them out, you find you have seriously upped your beam collection. Biggest drawback to 42055 is the color scheme. But, if you don't dwell on color too bad when building, parts is parts is parts. Because dark bluish grey has become my go to color choice these days. Arocs, Claas, BWE are heavy on it. It goes with any other color pretty easily, and so my MOCs are going to always feature light bluish grey, dark bluish grey and black as my main color choices. Accents will be in red, or as appropriate other colors to fit a theme, like yellow for construction, or orange for road work vehicles, etc... But it has plenty of track links for conveyors and tracked vehicles, some big linear actuators, xl motor, plus the round yellow racks. It's one that I held off on for so long but glad I finally got. Hope this helped. Happy Building BH

Any idea why the Power Puller Tech Fig is so rare? I remember this set being everywhere over here in the USA? I have one with helmet... Maybe a couple of them if we dug deep into my older stuff.

A regular Lawrence Welk... (Look that refference up if you don't get it kids...) great Job. Put a housing around the blades and duct it towards the soap carriers (tires) might produce an airflow with less vortexes coming off the spinning blades and increase viable bubble production. But I might not know anything about bubbles, just bubles ;-) Bublehead

They won't be happy until the left side becomes the right side and vice a versa. That will be narrow enough.

What I think is crazy is that a flagship set will have no new molds just new colors, and some small little tiny vehicle will have two brand new parts, 2 new molds in it. And of course these parts allow the smaller model to have some specialized function... and we don't see them used on a flagship set till the following year. Which again means to TLG, playability always trumps other aspects of the process, be it looks, size, color, etc... As far as I'm concerned, it is a challenge and more fun to have to engineer around things without new parts. To me that is the joy of building Technic Lego... make it work within a very specific set of rules, here the rules being, does TLG make it or made it in the past, does it break anything, and does it click/vibrate/self destruct. ? Happy Building BH

I was faced with wanting to use the same outriggers from 42009 or design new ones for my MOC. I opted for a new design. Now mine work well enough as a two stage set, and because I used a worm gear to drive the final rack of 8 toothed gears that turns the frictionless red 8 tooth that the 42009 uses which rides on the 16L axle, the large PF motor can easily load up the outriggers and put a huge load on them, almost enough to lift the whole thing off the ground. Even with dead batteries, I can get the linear actuators to click when retracted fully. I accomplished this by gearing down the motor as it enters the transmission by a factor of 4 to 1, then gearing it back up by 3 to 1 as I send the power to the outriggers at 8 to 1 back down. This gives me the least amount of friction in the transmission and maximizes the load carrying the outriggers can lift. I felt the 42009 design had no load lifting capability and I needed mine to actually stabilize my platform and take a large load. So remember that speed is not always your friend when in a high friction / high torque application. (And yes, my outriggers take a while to deploy but not nearly as long as it takes the huge Midway sign to raise 17 studs into the sky). Happy Building. BH

I agree with everything you say in that video. One thing I would add, if you are really serious about developing a design, do not give in to the "it's good enough with the bricks I have" mentality. If a better solution is out there and you lack the bricks to build it, then go get those bricks! I say this with a caveat- if you can't get the bricks for what ever reason, do not despair. Lego is not a race to be won or a process to lament about. Build what you can with what you got and think of ways to do the job using even less parts than your current solution. There is nothing more frustrating than to see the answer to a problem and be shy that one piece that would let you finish the solution and move on. Save your pennies and move on to another problem and solve that in the meantime while waiting to get the parts you need. And never be shy about making something better, even if that means taking a model completely apart to put a 3L pin instead of a 2L one. Happy Building. BH

Nice job... Everything you would want in a pneumatic version of the crane, and it runs from the PTO. Well done, I like the outriggers too. BH