Dazzzy

This is fantastic! I really like the architects office with the double height scale model. But i think my favourite part of the build is seeing the guy at the cashpoint first, then photocopying his money. Neat little touch!

Thank you!

Congratulations @steph77 @HorcikDesigns and @MajklSpajkl!!! (extra kudos for being the first to achieve all three different medals as well! ) And many thanks to @Jim & @Milan for putting together and running such an awesome contest! Also huge thanks to all who voted for my entry! I knew realistically i stood no chance against such awesome designs, but i'm genuinely surprised and feeling over the moon for coming as high as 7th, with my first ever proper attempt at a Technic moc!

I was just about to say the same thing. @snowvictim may be able to achieve what he's on about, in real brick, but i highly doubt it's a true uniform angled radius. Yes, i discovered the same issue myself. It would even render the parts that were intersected. There is a collision mode but i don't feel it works that well at times. Although it does wireframe the error once the offending piece is deselected, sometimes it's easy to bury the offending piece within a fairly dense model/build, without even realising. And i feel it does that because the snap mode is way inferior to the old LDD's. As a side note (kind of related i guess), i ran into a similar problem when placing roller coaster cars on curved and sloped track sections in stud.io. I eventually sussed it out though, (which is quite surprising for me, as i'm dumb as a rock). I ended up saving the method i used as a jig. So i'd advise if anyone manages to solve the issue of the hinge plate conundrum, to save some kind of jig or template for future usage/reference.

Cheers for the heads-up. No Porsche wallet or postcards flex for me @Coolusername, but damn that Turbo targa looks good! Have started a little modification myself, though there's still more to come. Can't decide what wheel cover colour looks best, but i'm leaning towards the dark grey.

Great review! And a fantastic set! (just finished building it). @XenoRad I think that's where they're heading. I think we will see more functional parts if they keep evolving the Creator series like they have been.

I suppose we'd really have to know how many units were sold in that first 15mins, before we can calculate how many 'Owners pack' incentives were produced. Like i say, it would've been nice to have the GWP/Owners set, but my main motivation was just getting the set early, which i have. I say good for you though if you're prepared to wait for John Lewis to offer a 20% discount on it. I'd be interested to know how often their discounts come about, as having just had a quick look, their prices seem to tally with Lego's prices (give or take a few pence).

This was my first ever VIP order (signed up for VIP earlier that day, 15/2/21). And it appears i too was caught out by the time-zone differences, (though having entered contests on Lego Ideas before, they always go by CET), i guess i should've of really known the release would be done by CET. I ended up ordering mine at 11:45pm UK time, so i definitely would've missed out by the sounds of things, though considering the high anticipation of the set and the worldwide popularity of the Porsche marque, it really comes as no surprise the GWP/owners pack went so quickly. I am a bit disappointed though not overly, as i value the actual set more than the card wallet, prints and certificate. Don't get me wrong, it would've been nice to have them as a nice little bonus, but the whole point of me signing up as a VIP, was to get the set early. Just finished building it, awesome model!

Not necessarily. I suppose what excess parts they have from other sets may also be a factor.

I think that's a very good point indeed that you've made, that maybe many in this thread may not have even considered.

I pretty much think i'm in the minority here, as i really don't mind the colour coding on 18+ sets. I take no offence in what you're saying and i can understand where you're coming from, but i happen to be one of those adults that's not too mentally sharp. So i appreciate the colour coding making it easier and quicker to put together. I don't think you need to fear this happening with Technic sets, (well, besides Lego's insistence on using those pesky blue pins). I think the Creator sets are aimed at a more broader audience, so i imagine that's why there's all the colour coding. I think the whole 18+ thing is just being used to identify to a wider adult demographic, that supposedly are in a better position to afford the premium prices of these sets. By the way, i cannot wait to build that Porsche! (ordered mine yesterday, but missed out on the owners pack GWP). I'll probably display it for a while, then work on a way to personalise it a bit, like i plan to do with the Mini Cooper. (attached a digital image created in Studio of my Mini, for anyone interested in what it will look like):

That's fair enough (lack of bigger engine and blower), it looks gorgeous in that blue and sitting on MT's. By the way, congrats on getting featured on TLCB!

Yes it appears the owners pack GWP went super quick! I made the mistake of ordering mine just before 00.00am UK time, thinking that the release times are country specific. Though it appears it's European release time i should've gone by, as there was no mention of it on my order. Oh well never mind, i'm still stoked to be getting the set on it's own!

That looks fantastic! Would look really good with a blower poking through the bonnet though, to go with those big rear drag tyres.

Personally i think the 18+ marketing is more to do with the pricing aspect, rather than the expected skill level needed. I'd have to check it out to be sure, but it seems the majority of 18+ sets (if not all, well with the exception of architecture sets), all seem to be licensed IP's in some shape or form. And i think this is Lego's way of passing on those costs to the customer. Another thing maybe to consider is, some parents may use the 18+ box markings as a tool. Imagine a kid just getting into Technic for the first time, sees the big racing car or big construction machine set etc, and without true understanding and appreciation of the cost of the expensive model, asks the parent if they can buy it for them. The parent can now use the age marking on the box to help guide and argue the case, for something more (albeit on the surface) in line to the kids age range and at a lower price point, which i image would have many parents wallets sighing with relief.

So again, it really comes down to the designers integrity. Another thing to think about, (regardless of the idea being built digitally or in physical brick), is that maybe the designer doesn't hold the best solution to a stability issue, but figures if their idea makes it to the review stage, Lego themselves will find a better solution. I'm pretty sure we've never had a successful idea put on the shelves, without Lego making changes to the final design.

It's all a question about integrity really. Either you trust the designer to have taken into consideration brick stability etc, or you don't. Just because an idea is photographed in actual brick form, it does not necessarily mean it's free of the issues you both bring up.

I really don't need to, as you're addressing your issue with rendered submissions to Lego Ideas. There's no confusion on my part. I can appreciate the sentiment about having everything connect well, and the stability of bricks being important, but i think it's wrong to assume that just because an idea is rendered, the designer hasn't taken those concerns into consideration themselves.

That certainly is an unpopular opinion, (well, with me anyway). No offence intended but i can't help but see it as quite a stuck-up elitist view really. Sure, it's nice to be able to show a physical brick model instead of just renders, but not everyone is in the position to be able build their ideas, either due to cost or availability of the bricks they need.

16:10 9:6 24:4 7:3 6:2 14:1 That was really quite hard to whittle it down to just 6 votes. I can think of at least 6-8 more entries i would've liked to have given my votes to, if we were allowed more than just 6. Good luck to all the entries!

I've just taken another look at the list of entries again, and blimey it's going to be hard to select just 6 entries to vote for. There's at least 12 that i really like, It's going to be a tough job for sure! Thanks to @Jim & @Milan for running the contest, (and others who've helped with tips and advice). And good luck to all the participants!

Thanks @Gray Gear & @Mechbuilds! Although it isn't exactly what i hoped it would be, (was hoping i could fit in a gearbox), i'm surprised too that it's turned out as it has, and that some members like what i've done. I must admit i got lost along the way (which didn't help), but i'm glad i managed to complete it. Thanks @Seasider! I nearly did the wheel spokes red as well but thought it would be too much. Looking at it now though, i really wish i had some yellow panels, as i think it may look better in a black and yellow combo, plus i'd change the name to Wasp or maybe Hornet. Also, i forgot to thank yourself, @ralphie and @MajklSpajkl for the inspirational use of buildable figures in all of your builds. It's something i would never of originally thought of, but it really did help scale and complete my build. So thank you. I'm pretty sure i've also seen some of @HorcikDesigns work before, making use of a buildable figure too, which again i find inspirational. Unfortunately the only photos i took of the rims were these ones at an earlier stage. I haven't bothered to disassemble them to take photos now that it's finished, because it can be quite a pain to do so, as it's quite fiddly. I did however make a colour-vomit build of them in S.tudio, so you can kind of see what's going on. The two rear outer rim constructions sandwich the center rim construction. And the pins with studs help push against the walls of the tyre, as without them the tyre would laterally shift around. While the fit is tight enough to hold all the components firmly together, it's not perfect, as due to the rim sections it kind of misshapes the tyre so it's not perfectly round. However, the slight rotation degree offset of the outer rims helps lessen that, so it still rolls surprising well and uniform. This is the front wheel without the tyre: And here's the back (including the drive shaft assembly): Thanks @Thirdwigg! A future cruiser was exactly the kind of bike i was hoping to get across, (albeit a sporty-ish one). I'm glad you like the custom hubs too, though they're not completely perfect, (the rear isn't a completely smooth round curve, and using the turntable as a bearing on the front, isn't the smoothest of solutions either - it's almost as if it could do with a light dusting of graphite powder).

Thanks @MajklSpajkl! Yes i agree, the seat is a bit too thin really. I can bulk it out a little, but as it is, Jyn almost clicks into place the way it is now. Thanks for the heads-up also, with regards to the entry topic name. I must've deleted it by accident. Thanks @MinusAndy! I actually wanted to make the front fairing a bit lower, but any lower than it is would hit the suspension when compressed. Thanks @johnnym! I almost didn't make it in time, i almost threw in the towel too, (feel quite exhausted now). So glad you like it!

Thanks ever so much @Rudivdk I really appreciate the help.

Hi @Jim and @Milan I'm not sure how to link my TC19 contest entry to my initial build thread. Can you tell me how to go about doing it correctly please? It is linked, but i'm sure i haven't done something right. [EDIT]: @Rudivdk has kindly come to the rescue.