HectorMB

Maybe you can install a switch (8869) at the top of the elevator. The problem with that is that you will need to switch there motor on each time after it reaches the top... it's just an idea! A clutch indeed can be an option as well, which is also the simplest, I think. But the issue of how to limit the time the motor is on is still unsolved, no?

All sets were sold

That's exactly what I think I need! Indeed, before using joysticks, I was trying them, but as I couldn't find a way to plip them to horizontal, I used the joysticks. I have implemented the program quite significantly (I will post the pics and a new video with the performance, which I think it will gain with the sliders). The question now is: doeas someone know if it's possible -and how- to rotate the sliders to horizonal? Thanks you all for the help!!! :)

Thanks a lot @GerritvdG! The advantage of your program is that the bed doesn't tremble. On the other side, as you pointed out, it returns to the center as the joystick is released... which is quite unconvenient. The idea is to hold a possition in rotation and then go up and down, but keeping the rotation position. I am still squeezing my brains to find a good solution! :)

While I was heading home I just came up to an idea for my issue. So: -I wanted to have a button that, when pressed, returns the bed to the original possition. For convenience, I also introduced a "reset button". I didn't find a solution in which this button and the rotation control of the bed are both active at the same time. So, I had to introduce a switch that blocks the rotation and then allows the "return to original possition" button to work. Is not perfect, but it works. -The idea that I came up to set limits to the roation of the bed is, as you see, two consecutive "IF" that only allows to continue when the angle of the motors is lower or higher than 260 or -260º (which is the converted angle after the gearing in the model that corresponds to 90º). As you can see in the video, it works... more or less. To avoid blocking the program because overpassing the set limits, I set a difference for the limit and the possition to which it returns when the limit is thresspassed. Unfortunately, this causes a "negative movement" caused by continuous attemps of rotation if one keeps trying to continue the rotation of the bed. As I said, I am very naive at programming and I am sure that are better and easier solutions than this one, but well, i tried! :) Has someone any alternative to the issues (the need of a swich for the "return to original possition" button and the bed control, the limits of the rotation themselves, and the "negative movement" in the solution I drafted)? https://bricksafe.com/files/HectorMB/public/diverse/JCB 6t test.mp4 PS: Please, I am very sorry if the descriptions are not very clear. As I said I am not familiar with the language to speak about programing and so on. Please, speak up if they are not understandable at all and I will do my best to re-phrase :) Thanks! Indeed I knew about this block, but when you mentioned I though that I could use it. THANKS! :) I see that I was not very sucessful explaining the problem . Is not that I want to have thre fixed positions, but to have free movement within certain max and min values.

Thanks for the help! :) Indeed I am trying to program a MOC which, by now, it doesn't have a mechanical stop and it is a requirement that, when it is switched ON the motor is at a certain possition. My idea was to program with blocks, yes. And the input is the angle. When I arrive home, I will post some descriptive pics of the MOC and the program that I have so far.

I am making it with the standard Powered UP App (sorry, I am quite naive programming-wise).

Hello everyone! After expending a couple of afternoons trying to find a solution, I have to ask is someone among you can help me. The situation is easy: I have a motor and I want to limit its rotation. Asuming that the starting angle is always 0, lets say I want to allow the motor to rotate between +/-180º. I found one solution (which is making a loop that allows move when the angle is below 180º, but the issue is that once reached the limit, the loop is finished and no move is then allowed. Is there any function to easely limit the rotation of a certain motor? All help or feedback will be more than welcome! Thanks a lot! H.

I cannot agree more on this. I don't like super cars, so I don't have any (neither in Lego or real ones ), and I do not intend to have any. On the other side, I am happy that Lego is being more and more popular: it ensures that we can keep playing with it and bulding cool things. That has nothing to do with how "good" or "bad" the official sets are. And, at the end, yes, Lego was intended to be something with what you could build something, put it down to pieces, and build a completely different thing. If the company is not having that anymore in mind -and is looking more to sets for display- should not be that dramatic: no one is preventing us to keep puting down into pieces the sets we buy and building cool things, no?

I'm exactly at that point as well. I think it's a fantastic idea. Having a subforum during contests themselves and, then, maybe, merging them into a single one might me good indeed.

I agree completely. As you mentioned, PU platform is getting in a direction that approaches basic programming and I think merging them could even favor both sides, Mindstorms and Technic. So, yeah. ;)

The front portal axle housing was the solution I found to be able to put in place the angular motor without increasing the height of the turntable or losing significant ground clearance. They also allow to have the same gearing than the rear axle housing, despite having a very different setup. And yes, probably "bed" is the most extended term for this kind of stuff. Thanks for the note! :).

And this is my current WIP. For some time, I wondered how to build a mini dumper, so I decided to jump into it. The pictures above are of the second iteration (I remodelled the whole rear section). I have verified that the dumper runs fine and all the functions do whatever they should do :). I will limit the steering, the rotation of the vat (is this the correct word? Please, tell me otherwise ;)) and its tilt. Any feedback will be more than welcome!!! :) Thanks! I agree that is not that frequently seen. It is also true that, with heavy models, is not easy to incorporate.

Hello everyone! I have decided to creat a post to place all my MOCs and WIPs. I will keep the first post updated by editing it for adding MOCs (not the WIPs). I hope that you guys like it and, of course, all feedback will be more than welcome! :). Heavy trial truck: Rebrickable: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-100386/HectorMB/heavy-trial-truck/#parts (the instructions are now for free; I will reimburse the cost for those that bothg them ) https://bricksafe.com/files/HectorMB/public/heavy-trial-truck/Heavy Trial Truck 01.mp4 https://bricksafe.com/files/HectorMB/public/heavy-trial-truck/Heavy Trial Truck 02.mp4 https://bricksafe.com/files/HectorMB/public/heavy-trial-truck/Heavy Trial truck Features.mp4 Dynamic automatic gearbox: It was the starting point of this MOC. Since I found them, I was very interested in the potential of the differential-based automatic gearboxes. I found that for heavy models, it was not very easy to use. In this case, I opted for doubling the gearbox to avoid any cracking when stepping up obstacles as well as increasing the resistance of the “high torque/low speed” pathway. After the two gearboxes, all the power is driven through a common central axle. After several testing, I found that the resistance should be proportional to the difference between the max and the low gearing; the bigger the difference, the bigger the resistance. The problem is that increasing the resistance, obviously, decreases the efficiency of the system… but, by now, I did not find any other solution. With this gearing, and the vehicle geometry, the truck can climb up to 42º steps. Suspension: Although not motor-driven, this was an aspect that gave me several headaches. The starting idea was to have a suspension on which when a wheel is elevated because and obstacle, it benefits from the suspension of the opposite wheel, increasing the ground adherence. In practical terms, this means that you can rise one wheel up to 10 studs keeping all other three wheels still touching the ground. An issue with this system (and having only 2 axles) is that the body of the vehicle tends to stay tilted after overcoming obstacles. To solve that, I included an extra pair of shock absorbers that, instead of being supported in the opposite wheel, they are attached to the body of the truck. Differential lock: Because of the geometry of the vehicle, front and rear differential locks were not indeed and option but obligatory. Indeed, the turning radius turns from 90 cm (diff lock closed) to 47cm (diff lock open). Although it is driven by a single motor, thanks to two clunch 24 gears, it is ensured that, despite a significant different backlash, both locks perform perfectly fine. Steering: About this feature, the major challenge was to minimize as much as possible the backlash of the steering rack. I even considered including an actuator-based steering system. Unfortunately, for this model, I could not manage to make it happen. In exchange, the steering rack is designed to reduce the backlash in any direction. In addition, the truck includes a working steering wheel. Openable doors: In total, the model has 6 openable doors. 2 that access the pilot and co-pilot positions, 2 laterals that allow to see part of the gearboxes (and how they work in flat and step terrain), 1 rear door that access the rear differential lock and 1 last roof door that, besides the appearance, it allows an easy access to the On/Off switch. And more to come!!!

Nice looking model! I like the truck functions. But, on the other side, I think the arm is a little weak. I don't have the Raptor, and I guess it's very piece-limited for this kind of alternative model.

Hello! I submitted a comment in the Buwizz website, but it was not published. The comment itself was about the scheduled roadmap of the BW app. In particular, given that the idea was to accomplish these features on the first quarter of the current year, we should expect some update really soon, no? Otherwise, has the roadmap changed?

All said already about practice, which I completely agree. But I would also add that building up sets (either official or MOCs) but paying attention not just to build them, but understand why they are built in that way helped me significantly.

The buwizz unit is sold.

Please, do not get biased from where I live from. You know nothing about me but, you are just judging me because the location that i have. I do not think that is a nice comment to judge someone for such thing. Even with your explanation, I think it has nothing to do with the forum topic. It is a subject itself that is enough for a really long discussion, but, again, I do not think that neither this is the place for that neither my comments invited you for such answers you made. So, honestly, I am sorry for how much you are affected with the conflict. It is indeed a shame and it is stressfull for all of us (at least for me). I understand your pain and stress, really, but all this out-of-the-topic conversation is out of the page, I think. The request to continue this in PM is not because you or me may get offended, is because the rules of the forum. So, I will not continue with this conversation but by PM instead -just for restect to the others.

I am very sorry, @brunojj1, but I am not following you at all. First of all, I do not know from where you may get offended in my words, or what pushed you to call me "absolute ignorant", but, in any case, I was not intending anything but trying to help. I think that your answers, both of them, are a bit out of place and, even after just trying to let it go the first time, this second time is now bothering me, because I find calling someone "incredibly ignorant" is offensive. If you are about to explode, I am sorry about that as well, but I think this is not the place to discharge. I really do not think that this forum is for that, at least. Regarding the question itself: it seems that I just did understand the question properly,as @Aleh pointed out -in a way more polite way than you, by the way-. But it also seems like the point and the questions were cleared, which, indeed, is one of the aims of this kind of forum. Anyway, if you want to continue with this sort of dicussion -which is absolutely out of the original topic- I would like to ask you to send me a PM.

hell yeah! (and still I do not get the point... probably is just because is monday or anyway!) Anyway, the question is solved and that's good no?

I am afraid that this is not an issue from Rebrickable, but from Paypal. I have been exactly in the same situation, and I just learnt that it is indeed impossible to change the Paypal address (or at least, the country). For that, you should open a new Paypal account with your new location. Of course, I can be wrong, and in such case, I would love to also know how to go ahead with this change :).

I looked for something like that some time ago. The alternatives that I considered were: -Add a clutch 24-teeth gear (or two!) -add a rubber band attached to a fixed axle with a half bush -place the axle through 2 2L-rubber liftarms. Obviously, proportions 2 and three imply a significant damage to the pieces. And I also tried even a gradual-friction regulation with a linear actuator that compresses a small wheel with 2L-rubber liftarms. Was funcional, but needed a lot of space...

Just got: -a Zetros, built, with stickers, but perfect condition, for 55 chf (=$) -a buggy 42124, built, stickers supplied but unapplied for 25 chf. That was a good weekend... :)

stepper turning angles? Sorry for my ignorance, but to what you're referring? But, nevertheless, I agree that two buggy motors is a overkill setup. I was thinking in something like that for a high speed buggy car, on which one may need both, speed and torque. So, yes, reducing to one motor and one BW unit is probably a good solution.