SaperPL

I thought someone has a know how to make those kind of animations in studio, but this is nuts - 146 renders ?!?!

Initial steps for instruction done:

I just noticed that most of the sets with a tow bar have it implemented in a non-functional way either because there is no tilt for steering with the towed vehicle attached or because of lack of clearance for the bumper area in front of the wheel. If you were to put some model at the matching scale on it, the small turntable and its attachment above would be too close to the front of that car. The closest to working properly, I think, is what is there in 42008 Service Truck, but you'd tilt the towed vehicle, it'd start touching the arm at the corners. I wonder whether we should care about this being functional at all...

Well, yeah, the color theme is something that fits some kind of special firefighting vehicles. EDIT: Btw, what's interesting with the original set is that the B-model has completely different vibe:

Thanks and well, not sure about that, I wouldn't tow such big plane on a flatbed :D The grey color is intentional here - the original model had the battery visible from the back of the cab and there was a top edge that was partially yellow, partially black which was holding the steering knob, but I built it slightly differently with more clear space for ergonomy. There are few parts I couldn't get in specific colors that would make it more obvious, like for example here the black thin liftarms within the frames should be dark grey to represent the battery cover, but I couldn't find it locally in this color. Also I couldn't get enough trans orange 1x1 tiles so there's a one imperfection in that top trans orange light with a 1x2 tile instead, and for some reason I couldn't get red liftrams 7L for the lever under the flatbed at the time I was placing orders. I hope the design is what counts because those are just small part sourcing issues.

I finally managed some time to shoot and clean photos for the entry: Full Size Photo Original Model Full Size Photo Original Model Full Size Photo Original Model Full Size Photo Also updated the opening post with them. Now I need to put together a showcase video before I'll be able to submit the contest entry. I'm short on free time to build recently so I don't want to start figuring out whole thing from scratch, and I would need to, really. The first problem is that if I were to add second linear actuator, then the input for both linear actuators need to be handled and it would change the construction back to what I initially planned with two knobs where the access panel for gearbox switch is in the original model, and this is a place where turning the knob is not really ergonomic as well as the access panel tilting causes additional significant complications because it needs a clearance on the inside, which affects rigidity of the frame. It would be doable, but it would be a messy build and in the end using the knobs would be annoyingly non-ergonomic. The second problem is that small linear actuator has barely any extension on its own, it's just 3 studs. This is visible on my gif on the first page where I actually tested it. It's enough to open up the tray, but not enough to actually tow a car with clearance like in the original model - note that in original model when the tow bar end starts rotating the whole thing is still moving laterally out. It's just that even if I solved the problem of how to make it turn those 180 degrees back and forth, I would still have two big problems to solve here and I feel like both are not doable at the same time. I could have more room internally if I cheated and used 1 stud wide wheels, but the original model had wide ones, so the ones that I picked are matching. But then it'd again get a bit complicated with steering at the front because of gear rack size requirement.

Yeah, angling doesn't really help much. Also you need to start building it physically, you can easily build something in Studio that makes sense in 3D model, but isn't working in real life.

I've built a fake engine at this scale this way: There is still some travel on those fake pistons in this kind of construction.

Nice progress. Is everything driven through that 20T gear at back that is offset to the left? By everything I mean steering, outriggers, rotation of the turntable and that input inside the turntable? I don't like the design of the engine though - half bushings attached halfway at the end of the axle feels like something that will definitely get loose. Also the knob being asymmetric might be weird when driving, but more importantly I think it should stick outside of the outline of that system rear lights assembly to be ergonomic. I would expect there would be a lot of cranking done with this, so it should be done ergonomically.

I'm at 706 parts while according to brickset 8109 has 1115, so it's 63% of parts vs the original, and if I remember correctly my model is at 73% of scale of original model. In your case it makes sense because you are recreating panels all around the body with smaller pieces and I guess you also have more parts in the engine and suspension than the original model.

It looks really good apart from those few light grey details. Also isn't steering knob ratio to steering a bit too low/too much cranking to turn the wheels? It's a really interesting model both in terms of how it's built underneath and how it looks when put together. Those flexible axles based techniques look to me a bit messy at places, but it all comes together well overall.

The physical controller issue - TLG should hire or consult some kind of UX (User Experience) designer that would explain to them that touch screens are not tactile and don't communicate well the feeling that you're still pressing the button, and so if you're not looking at the screen, but at your $700 RC Lego toy, it will definitely end up disconnecting when you'll slip your finger off from a virtual input. Different devices will handle input differently, but prolonged holding of a turned on phone will mean sweaty fingers because screen backlight will put some heat there and the phone will emit heat, and also because you will end up pressing your fingers into the touch screen to not loose that connection. I like the idea of code blocks, but rather than making them each a different item, I'd like them to have a dip switch for like 7 basic functions + 1 slot for programmable function. I wish there was a simple brick that would be programmed to handle gearbox switching based on the load, that would automatically control servo based on the load on drive motor. Fully detachable wires would be cool as well.

You could try to use the normal shock absorber in a way that it holds canopy in both position and is squeezed when traveling between those positions. But it would mean either attachment point sticking out downwards ~45 degrees from the canopy or the attachment point on the chassis being slightly above the seats level and so the shock absorber would be visibly between seats when open. I'm not sure what you're planning for the canopy to look like, but I think it will need some kind of way to hold it up in open position.

This looks really good. Why don't you show a proper photo of whole thing assembled first ? :D

Interesting choice. Can't wait to see more progress on how you're going to represent those classic panels and studded beams. Why though? You're not treating is as valuable function or is it going to get complicated? I would think about just raising it on blue 3L pins for the sake of friction holding the cover? Unless the whole cabin was opening up in the original model?

The aim is to have submodels that make sense and split building into similar amounts of parts per step as Lego does. Not much big philosophy here apart from the fact that you should identify modules that make sense they are together for the specific model you're making. Make axles in submodels, put them in a chassis submodel, separate parts of the cab that can be assembled together and connected together to the main model etc.

It's not that bad, it's actually pretty good for a first attempt. You've got a pretty good background, but you're missing some good light. If you don't have a proper light, I recommend using daylight around morning next time. I'm not a fan of these type of controls where you handle arm actuation at each stage separately in-place and the video is showing the awkwardness of those kinds of solutions really well (at least I perceive this as awkward, but at the same time I didn't manage to make it perfectly acceptable for me at this scale yet). And while that's a good model for the contest, the presentation in the video could be better if made into cuts of specific features without overexposing the awkwardness - the scenario with consequence of actions making sense doesn't mean you have to capture everything in one go. There's still few weeks till the end so you can consider some improvements on this. The build itself is really good and it's surprising that the bucket can hold those small 1x1 pieces :D

@kbalage About the counterweights - are those definitely just ABS? They seem to look like a metal plate covered in plastic. Just out of curiosity I would like to see what would happen if you'd try to drill it through :) Also are those holes on those counterweights compatible in any way with pins?

It does have functions where you select parts to move to specific step, but this has to be done in step list. The bigger problem is that when you're in specific step, adding new parts is happening at the newest step and not in a step which you're in context of at the moment, so it is making a mess and you have to manually manage it. It's made as if assumption is that you're always working on the last step and you've finished previous steps already so new parts are landing in the last step always by default.

Ehh, again the misunderstanding what I meant by pay2win... in competitive games pay2win problem is not exactly literal/self-explanatory from the name as you: pay money, you win. It's about the odds being uneven. If it was to be implemented literally, it would obviously kill the live games doing it this way. So I'm talking about competitive edge that premium/paid items give in competitive games. And I'm using the pay2win definition as such when talking about contests where having more bricks gives you competitive edge. When there are restrictions on the size, it gets clear that everyone has a fixed entry point, if there's no restriction, having more inventory/more money to get the inventory and therefore option to build bigger and more complex things and more detailed things will give you competitive edge. And the problem is not only about the amount of competitive edge actually mattering in the outcome, but more importantly about the perception of whether it matters to the players. Getting back to this simply because of the oversimplification here - I stated that two models of the same visual quality with different size will be treated differently. And you can say that if there's a contest allowing to enter with various sizes, it's a choice to go with a smaller entry model, but it's a choice IF you can actually build the bigger one when you have enough inventory of bricks, it stops being a choice when you're constrained with limited amount of bricks you've got loose. So it's an uneven odds at the entry point when it comes to how much money you've spent on loose inventory, and it of course may depend on whether you keep the sets intact etc, but still it affects the odds. And of course quality matters, so just going bigger and making a subpar entry isn't a "throw money at the problem" plan to win. I guess it's my fault for taking the pay2win term from competitive GaaS (Game-as-a-Serivce) games and using it here without explaining this precisely first... I think I might have OCD when it comes to rules because of my job as a game dev. And also we end up debating it over and over again when someone throws an idea for a contest which is not size constrained and I point out that it may get pay2win, and someone contests that/asks for more explanation and the whole debate starts again...

That's exactly why you should do it while you're building the studio model and not afterwards when it gets cumbersome to select parts and laziness/other projects kick-in :)

I will clarify this because I see you didn't get my point. Whenever you have two entries that are same visual quality, the bigger model will get more votes in popular voting. No offense, but your aston wasn't on par with quality of other submissions, but there's a reason for that we both know - recreating it perfectly was a challenging task, which means you picked a hard set to recreate. When we get back to studless recreation topic, note that there are quite a few perfect recreations of smaller sets that get barely any votes, and there's one 8440 that was pretty simple construction thanks to panels, and that was a good choice, and so still got significantly more points than smaller entries that were recreated properly. My point isn't that it's not fair, but the fact that if people join a contest, give the contest a try and there's no specific size requirements, they enter with something smaller and there's barely anyone voting for their submissions, we'll lose those contestants in following contests because of that. And my understanding was that this topic was for figuring out how to set up the next context in a most optimal way which means as much contestants as possible. So my view of that is to set a fixed relatively affordable size restriction so people with limited amount of free cash to spend and time to tinker on the entries can also participate and not assume that if you want to participate you have to have few thousands of bricks laying around. That is why I'm calling the lack of size restriction a pay2win. But I'll stop talking about it now.

My point of this being pay2win. You see, I don't think I have thousands of loose parts, and I like keeping some custom MOCs that came out well for a longer time on the shelve. For me spending $100 on custom parts while also using up some of other parts that I already have for a contest that I might take part in twice a year is fine, but having a few thousands of pieces just to be ready or buying multiple sets for the contest to strip for parts etc, feels like far more than a simple hobby contest for fun and is not worth it anymore considering the time I'd have to put into it as well. What I noticed few times is not that those big and flashy sets did win, but they chipped away big portion of points making some close contenders (IMO in quality of their submissions) further away from the podium. But yes, they still need to be well built and designed, so it's not just big thing always wins, but small thing also needs to be well built and designed, and I feel like big builds with parts in proper colours will often win over smaller ones when quality-wise both are good for their scale. Combine that feeling with what I said above, and you can see it that I'm biased against contests that could go that way.

Did you try just putting the 16tooth clutch/gearbox gear in front of the universal joint and going around the engine drive shaft this way? This would need either engine to go forward 1 stud or universal joint to go back 1 stud, but that's something that I'd try to make. Alternately you could do the similar thing with gears above and below but connected through chain so the universal joint can stay where it is. What I don't like about lever approach here is that it will require that place and eventually it'll affect your potential to decorate interior of the cabin. Symmetric setup with gears usually makes more sense.

In contest with popular vote I've seen big builds that on the inside just used standard techniques thanks to standard suspension and engine parts etc, and what made them complete was the amount of panels they could assemble. And those did compete in number of votes with some of smaller ones that were more thought through and more challenging because the smaller ones had to precisely think through the inner mechanics. A lot of people have sets that they don't want to take apart and for a 2000 pcs MOC you either need to have two or even three sacrificial sets, or you spend additional money and/or time to source the parts in specific colours. Pick-a-brick isn't ideal and bricklink or local marketplaces are limited to what the current reseller has at the moment, so you end up piling up the costs of shipping. Unless you just have a pile of sets stripped for parts, but that again costs. It's either that you've got a huge pile of loose bricks in specific colours you tend to use and that matches the thing you need to make for the contest or you need to start sourcing parts and separately they definitely cost more per piece than in sets. And from my experience, building something similar in size to $50 set may easily get up to $150 when you're getting bricks from multiple sources. And my point isn't that I or others are short on money, but that getting into 2000 pcs region it's getting too expensive and more importantly too much time consuming to source the parts needed, especially when bigger models tend to have more situations where you need to rethink your strategy and buy something else.