SaperPL

Actually depends on the contest here. Camera battery being dead might mean actually dead - not charging and that he won't be able to charge it, although there's always camera in the phone as a backup plan. Anyway taking the deadline being today into account, I have probably misinterpreted @Milan's word as being about the virtual model here being okay for entry, but I guess it was more about the "illegal" techniques used.

According to the rules: And the photos in the opening post are not the ones of the entry build, but something he started from and used the parts. Regardless of whether anyone states that he actually built something physically, it would be unfair if someone was allowed to use renders for his entry while others played according to the rules.

Really cool model. I missed this somehow. I wish you could had time to rebuild the chassis to be black and dark grey like in the original one. Are you planning to make a video showing off the functions? Also for the Ackermann geometry - I don't get how this construction is supposed to have that - it may be slightly uneven towards how Ackermann works, but my understanding is that the attachment points on steering should form a line with centre of the rear axle.

I was curious what's up with the seat on tractor until I saw the video, and that's a pretty simple but clever solution. Good job on this detail as well :)

I still haven't perfected the axle socket - the tightness varies from filament to filament. Apart from this, I already had people asking me where to order those, and like I said before, I'm not so keen on running a store and making those parts even through shapeways.

Yeah. It will be really hard to pick what to vote on. By the way - how the votes will work? Will I have to pick one best in my opinion or will I be able to vote for all entries which I like? (it's my first contest)

How about making the middle windshield bar like this? I'm not so keen on that liftarm in the middle and the windshield wasn't wasn't really curved or bent in this direction, it was just angled.

Thanks, but I'm good with this image. Wow, I never thought about suspension working like this. I mean I've seen axles connected by levers like in the yellow 6 wheeler that's in the contest, but I didn't think about connecting it this way. That's a new one for me. Thanks for explanation - I shall build something like this :D

Really cool build after all. I'm not so keen on the exposed gears, but there's a lot of fine details like the cabin door on the crane and the hood of the tractor. I still believe this should be out of the scope of "Try to stay as close to the original as possible" but I'm not the one to judge this, so well. Anyway we've got a lot of creative builds crossing the boundaries and this is definitely one of them. By the way, I'm blown away how compact your tractor feels - it uses the same size of wheel that my tractor used but mine feels bulky in comparison to this .

I'm even more curious now to see how this is assembled. The instruction isn't live yet (or am I missing something?)

Amazing build - simple and complex at the same time. Really cool that you could even fit a working engine in front over the axle with suspension. Talking about suspension - I'm having hard time finding where are the shocks in this build.

I was thinking that maybe something like this could work: But it's not that good. That's a tough one to figure out . Right now what I would pick on is that liftarm in the middle of the windscreen - maybe instead of that, make the top edge of the windscreen with flexible axle and add the middle bar of the windshield that supports it? You'd get a properly angled middle bar in the winshield, maybe you could add the 1L liftarm/pin bushings on the flexible axle to make it like that dark stripe on the top of the window that some vehicles have and it'd fill out that space at the upper edge of the windshield?

I think the use of the fender as the front windshield frame is a bad idea - you should build a sticking out roof with curved panels like in the original set and add slimer sides. It really looks weird and breaks the looks and it would be a bummer to not perfect this at this point.

It kind of looks weird with a single big actuator at the middle and not supported at the back, but I checked and yeah, it wasn't supported at the end in original set. When I'm looking at the original, the ramp feels a bit more chunky, so maybe that's why it looks a bit weird with single line of liftarms hanging, not sure.

Awesome build. This is exactly how I would see keeping the scale of original system set. I think this is a strong contestant for the podium :) I'm not sure whether the linear actuator is a good thing there, but I guess it works, it's just kind of weird that the platform isn't supported somewhere around the end.

@Akassin the issue here is that if the contest were to allow and encourage making significantly bigger models that have more functions than the original model, we'd get dozens of people picking up city sports and off-road cars or trucks and building them at Technic scale whether it's a supercar scale or a medium set scale, and we'd end up with a contest of who built the best car model themed similarly to the set. While this is really creative here and not in the spirit of what I just wrote because of how awesome the figure is, if the rules were interpreted in a way that this is ok because it's creative, but just making a car inspired by some small city car set is a no go, it would be a bit unfair. @Jim I think that whole issue with the scale boils down to the fact that you combined two rules about the scale into one - the overall scale of the model, which is obviously not limited (you can pick set of any size), but the scale should be roughly the same as the original set's scale. At least that's the only way that I can interpret it making sense, but the way you worded it leaves it a bit in the grey area. While it is very creative, IF I am right about the interpretation of the rules, look at it from the perspective of other contestants - they could go wild and be creative like @MangaNOID if they ignored the scale, but they obeyed this rule and now they are in a completely different league. Rules in a competition should be strictly enforced and not changed, especially when people need to spend time and money to participate. Of course the contest is for fun, but if you spend whole contest doing one thing and then it occurs that the official interpretation of the rule is different and you could've been doing something completely different, it doesn't feel good. Also while the scale rule is not perfect, it states: And as close as possible for the buggy could be at least something like Class Xerion Mini scale kind of model, but the scale here was enforced by the mechanisation of the Megafig and the contest wasn't supposed to be about adding more features - it could've simply use a Technic figure (I know these might be hard to get though).

Awesome build, I somehow missed this one. I really like the engine and rotor details.

This is really cool and creative approach to this contest, but it feels to me exactly of what you shouldn't have done when it comes to scale - getting smal system set and upscaling it so it has mechanical functionality. With that said - maybe we should have a contest that is about envisioning small sets into bigger Technic models? Unless we get dozens of supercars and trucks based on small sets, this could be interesting. it is amazing nonetheless, so good job and good luck ! EDIT: maybe you should submit this to Lego Ideas? Would have to check if there is a Technic Moon Buggy set though, because that could be disqualifying it because of the terms.

I suggested someone to build this in other place, not sure if that was you, but I hoped someone would do this set. Pretty good job for a one day build, I expected it to take a lot more time when I looked at the instructions of the original set. What I would fix though: 1) The flexible axles should form a curve - that was something that really defined the shape of the original model. You should probably figure out a way to push the attachment points at the back one stud forward for it to happen. 2) I would probably use some rounded panels as front fenders and maybe try using them at the back - that's how I would envision those triangles being handled with contemporary pieces. 3) I would use 12 tooth gear for the HOG knob as it's closer to the original knob. 4) I would try putting blue pins in those angled liftarms over the seats where the "headrests" were. 5) I would probably try to use shorter liftarm in front of the "door" part at different angle so this construction isn't open in front. I know it's how the original one, but I'd consider it being a modernisation to not have such unfinished/open lines. Note that it made sense for the original to have it angled like that because the back portion of the front fender was attached to it, but you don't do that here. Anyway, I'm glad that someone picked up this set :D

Yes, there are sets that do use significant amounts of system bricks for detail, especially the licensed ones. But the competition is about the studless approach and I believe something like the front grill in your model is a significant element that is defining the look of it, and it's not a minor detail. Yeah, that feature in the original was lacklustre. My point was, although I might be in the wrong here, that you might have overdid it with the features which made the look ot the are around the back window really messy. But it might just be the fact that making those original features with just liftarms makes it look like this, so I dunno anymore. If the cause was not having enough space for something just because you had to have space for frame holding this improved feature, then it may be detrimental for this build. Anyway, features aside as I was mostly in the wrong here, I believe while there are licensed sets with portions of model team approach using system bricks, this contest is not about this but mostly pure studless construction, so the grill is really what's wrong here, from my point of view.

I will be harsh on this - you are using a lot of system bricks especially where it matters for the look - grill and bumpers, some tricks like using studded pieces for micro fake piston engine should be okay, but taking such significant portions of the vehicle and making it with system pieces should be a no-go. If I understand correctly, you've added some functionality over the original set. But as per rules, adding more features shouldn't matter much. And because of that you compromised in some places on the looks (I suppose) since some areas of the model are a bit messy. I don't think that should be a winning entry unless I'm wrong about the above.

I didn't dig through all of the comments here yet, but I got the gist of this on the first page. I think the drop is not only on EB, but also across the web. And also I think there was a spike of interest when the lockdown started... IMO the issue boils down to the fact that a lot of people will vote/comment for stuff that expensive to build, which they can't afford etc, but they won't participate in discussions on something they could actually build on their own with limited funds. I've seen the same mechanism in PC and Small Form Factor PC scene on reddit where you can literally find people posting each day or each week "I built my first gaming PC - how did I do?" with photos of over-the-top system meaning top shelf components and RGB etc, and people will upvote it like hell even if it's literally the same thing that was posted yesterday - you get the idea. But if you go and post something that explains how to solve a problem, people who happen to don't have that issue will just downvote it to the ground. The same thing happens on Technic subreddit where people over and over again drop photos of what they bought, what they built from the set and how their collection looks and this gets upvoted and commented a lot, and in effect newcomers feel that the community is all about buying expensive sets and boasting how much of Lego they have. Second "sin" is that we've got to a point where a lot of people will make cool MOCs in which they figure out something, but they won't share how to do it because the instruction is premium on rebrickable and, from what I feel, the core idea of MOCs is building your own thing, so most of the people won't buy the instruction just to take a peek at some unique solution. Threads were people share different solutions for the same problem are cool. As for the positive/negative feedback - I think we got to a point where most of the population would want to work only on positive feedback and won't accept constructive critique, and since we can't have "just nice feedback" rules, they'll automatically assume the community is toxic whenever they'll see people criticising someone's work/their work, and won't come back. A lot of people share their stuff on the web just so they can get the positive feedback for dopamine boost rather than actually wanting feedback.

I'm consolidating my 3D printing topics in this one to keep track of it. Future releases will go into this one. If you have any ideas on parts that could be designed or simply have a problem that could be solved with custom part, let me know here, I might be interested in designing it.

You make your topic with build log and you link to it in a single comment in the TC20 entries topic and that comment needs to adhere to the specific rules.

I hope it gets enforced by the jury since for those who adhere by the rule it was harder to build from contemporary parts and also building remake with some crucial parts that were used in the original set like tires, rims, suspension pieces and some panels that were significant part of the original look, would be easier. I'm against extending the deadline. There are people that decided on smaller builds to fit within deadline when it comes to ordering parts and building time. If I knew beforehand there were two more weeks for it, I'd build the second set and decide on which to submit for the entry.