Cumulonimbus

While rating the entries of TC8 I had an idea for a possible contest: “Design a TLG set” - 3 categories: mini, medium and flagship each with respective limited part counts and each category will have a winner - Any machine is possible, but it should be something which is attractive (in function, shape and color) to the target audience. Note that the targeted age groups can differ in each category. - Box art proposal should be a deliverable as well - Focus on playability and ease of operation - Attention for construction rigidity and sturdiness (maybe a video of a prescribed droptest to prove it) - Free to choose RC/PF, possibly as a extension option Any thoughts?

When scoring the entries I looked at the following attributes which I find important: - Originality of the type of machine the entry represents. - Playability: is the entry easy to operate, what features does it have to play with, how many options does the entry allow for interacting with other sets/creations. - Ingenuity: the level of “cleverness” of the chosen creative solutions and mechanisms - Looks: proportions, aesthetics and colour scheme As a result, my votes are: 1: 10 6: 6 5: 4 12: 3 16: 2 17: 1 Good Luck to all contestants!

I disagree, I think we tend to link a new part to the set it first appeared in. Even a very specific part such as the cement mixer half thingy (sorry, don't know the correct name) has many uses as proven by official sets and MOCs. In fact a colleague of me was recently hired by TLG specifically to makes sure than any new part will be multi functional and not limited to one specific use. In my eyes each new part (and panel) opens up new possibilities we don't fully know yet. Only by using it in MOCs and sets will its usefulness be proven.

Nice work, I love the scale, functionality and color. Two points of possible improvement in my eyes: - The ladder is a bit too crude for this scale, I would even consider deleting it all together. - Secondly, are you planning to clean up the PF cables if possible? I'm curious if you have an idea of the part count. This entry will definitely be one of my favorites during voting.

I support the trend of using panels because I see their many advantages: - They can be used as structural elements, giving a model more rigidity, even allowing to mimick state of the art structures a monocoques. The flex-tube style always needs a supporting structure, which can lead to very bulky models. - Panels make models more substantial, by which I means that there is a more clear distinction between interior and exterior. Flex tube models often are “ghost-like” and sketchy, since only some lines of a body are shown. For example Sariels’ Zonda - The design of the panel parts is truly magnificent. It never ceases to amaze me how much creative possibilities they allow and the curves they can represent. The 2016 corner panels/seats are a perfect example. Panels have come a long way since the first generation, which I didn’t really care for to be honest. As a result of these properties, in my opinion, the current Technic models (from small to huge) really look modern, crisp and increasingly realistic.

Again that negativity, why? Milan has chosen a different style than what we are used to and that fact alone makes it worthwhile to see how this creation will turn out. How can this not be what Lego is about? This is EXACTLY what Lego is about: anybody can build their ideas and their visions. The fact that it doesn't meet your expectations doesn't take away form it's ingenuity or MOC value. Sorry if my reaction is a bit fierce, it's not personal TheItalianBrick, but I get a little fed up with negativity in topics that can really take away from the fun of building. It's ok to provide criticism, but do in a constructive way, so the builder can learn from it. Simply saying "it's clumsy" isn't helpful for anybody. Be open minded, you can only learn from it.

That is what you call an ambitious project, especially when you want to recreate all the curves of the real ship. I have built a wooden ship model and even with a flexible material such as wood planking, it was very challenging to get the curves right. Personally, I would start by building the crucial cross sections and position them on a keel or a fake keel. This will give you some structure to fix parts of the deck and hull. You probably familiar with this portfolio as well (I forgot the name of the creator): https://www.flickr.com/photos/konajra/albums Good luck!

Haha, I wish (I really do). No, "unfortunatly" I'm just a regular AFOL who thought TLG creations needed some positive support.

Maybe I missed something in this discussion, but are we really sure that the arm can't be raised by a mechanism not visible in the image?

I have a suspicion that names might be ambiguous on purpose. As we have seen again the past weeks, set names are the first to leak. Calling something a formula off-roader could be a strategy to keep competition in the dark for a little bit longer. In the cases where names are very specific, like the Unimog, the upcoming Claas and Volvo, TLG is even more protective about set information and images. On the other hand, it might just be the result of a language barrier. In my home country the word "digger" could apply to several very different machines like a dozer, a back-hoe, a front-end loader or an excavator. Same thing with the word "crane", which is used for excavators as well as mobile, crawler and tower cranes. I guess that every language and every region will have those differences in interpretation. A side note: I find that we are becoming increasingly critical towards TLG, to the point that they can't seem to get it right (in AFOLs' eyes): We complain about boring color schemes, TLG gives us new colors and we complain about ugly combinations. We complain about too similar machines in each release, TLG gives us variation, we complain about lack of realism. My opinion: TLG is really putting in a lot of effort to keep things fresh with new parts, colors, machine variations and licenses. It might not be to everyone's taste, but when I look at my collection, I seem to buy more and more sets with each new release, so they must be doing something right.

I must confess that I tend to take these things (MOCs, contests, topics, etc) too seriously and my perfectionism isn't helping either. I will finish my cranes, but at my own pace, I just don't need the "stress" of another deadline at the moment, it takes too much away from the fun of building.

Hi Jim, welcome back! I decided not take part in the TC8 for a number of reasons: - It is a really busy time for me now, some crucial things in my personal life (search for new job and new house) really eat up a lot of free time. When I do have the time, the energy and inspiration are often at a very low level. - The additional requirement of a video is something I have no experience in and don’t have the time for to go through a learning curve. - The fact that there is no part count restriction has created huge expectations in the community, I feel that my 700 piece tower crane or 42042 sized crawler cranes simply can’t live up to those expectations.

I like your crane, the stickers look as if they were meant for this model. The "angle-o-meter" on the boom is a nice touch.The only thing which lets the model down a bit (for me) is the brick built cabine and its position. For a Technic creations I like to see a Technic cabine as well. I feel that the cabine should be lower and further forward as well, for example: Good luck with your entry

Impressive, really love your door hinge mechanism which is so typical for this brand. It is already recognisable as a Koenigsegg. Curious to see the rest, good luck.

Nice crane, these types of crane present a very complex puzzle, which you seem to have solved with your MOC. BTW, I hate to be the one to spoil your fun, but didn't Milan say that a MOC crane on top of a official set was not allowed for the TC8? Or are you still planning your own carrier? In that case, ignore this remark.

Exactly. And besides, speaking for myself, these small sets tend to creep up to you (as an AFOL) and before you know it, there are sitting on your desk as a parts pack or as MOC inspiration.

Pheew, tough crowd to please. I don't know if these comments are meant to be funny or not, but it is an indication of what I see happening in a lot of topics here. We get so spoiled with amazing creations that only the ultimate and most perfect creations get all the praise. I decided not to participate in the TC8, partly for this reason. Anyway, I like your creation Zblj. It really has your signature style, keep up the good work.

If all goes well, I finally have my 8455 this weekend. That will sort of complete my wish list. On the other hand, I'm still in doubt about are the 8855 airplane and the 8854 crane because they were the two sets I missed out in my youth. I kinda limited myself to studless sets after my dark ages, but I already broke that rule with a 8880.

Existing parts in new colors spotted: The new Nexo Knight sets have the 3x11 panels in DBG and the motorcycle rims in tranlucent orange:

[Deleted] (Never mind, misunderstood something and replied something off-topic)

Not sure I understand what you mean. You have seen better images or did you see a prototype somewhere?

Thank you for the link, it looks like a fun competition with a lot of interesting entries. To be honest, I think I prefer your entry. It is nice and clean, with good functionality. If it was a real set I would like a car on the same scale included as well, that would increase the playability much. Good luck, I hope you get a lot of votes.

Impressive truck, I like the complexity of the gearbox. The additional water-steam strokes is a nice idea worth exploring. It reminds me of two concepts for modifications of the combustion engine I heard about. In one concept the engine used the compression stroke of the four-stroke cycle to compress air into a buffer tank when the vehicle is slowing down. This compressed air was used to get the motor up to speed again from standstill, at the moment when a combustion engine is least efficient or has the lowest torque available. The other idea used a slave cylinder which moved up and down on the crankshaft, but its only function was to compress the ingoing air-fuel mixture, similarly to a supercharger. Can't find any sources at the moment though.

Yes you're right, but rethinking my words, I meant playability more that the number of functions. Remember that a some of the functions of the 8288 like slewing and driving where not "actuated", meaning that there wasn't a knob or lever to power these functions manual. The 42042 thanks its size to the fact it is a PF set. I see it happening every time a (Technic) rumour starts, everybody is wishing and daydreaming for all the rumoured sets to be PF and RC powered flagships and that is certainly part of the fun. But the drawback is that a lot of AFOLS are subsequently disappointed when most turn out to be manual powered small or medium sized sets. I tried being a bit more realistic with my guess, because based on releases of past years, the probability is high that a lot of the rumoured sets will be medium or even small sets. But anyway, at this point anybody could be right. EDIT: Maybe it is mentioned previously, but is there any significance in the numbering of sets? I mean, how certain can we claim that the 42053 will be a smaller set than the 42054, meaning that the 42055 wheel bucket excavator is expected to be the biggest set of next years 1H or 2H release?

Thanks for the links, I was wondering what the advantages were of such a crane on a trailer compared to a more traditional mobile crane. In the words of the first article: "It can be towed with its full 43 metres main boom and 10.6 tonnes of counterweight by a standard two-axle tractor, and still weigh less than 40 tonnes." This means that: "This is the only 55 tonne capacity crane that can be transported using any normal truck so it doesn’t incur extra costs for special road permits. The total weight of the truck and trailer is only 40 tonne so it can be driven like any normal truck on all roads in Germany and many other European countries. It also enables us to travel longer distances using the shortest route possible, saving time and fuel." The second article states that "The GSK ... is targeted at buyers that may already have a tractor unit and who do not require the off-road capability of an All Terrain crane." Apparently, the crane is self contained, so the truck is not needed on site while lifting for several days for example You learn something every day.