hrontos

Hehe, these boxes are nice, thank you. And the calendar I will have to create myself.

I wonder if somebody ever made a technic advent calendar. I got this idea when we were assembling city advent calendar from 2011 and it was not only 24 mini models, but some of them had to be combined to get some larger models. From a technic advent calendar I would expect to get 24 submodels of something that will be finally assembled to one complete model. Each day 10 parts to add to larger model. Just like when you get parts as an extra to your favourite hobby magazine and you assemble them whole year. Of course a building guide printed only on calendar windows can be tricky. I know it's a bit silly, since advent calendars usually contains Christmas related mini models, but StarWars advent calendar does not. This one can contain one larger model related to Christmas or winter (or even unrelated). It's not that attractive for TFOLs or AFOLs, but for kids between 8 and 10 it can be a good option after two or three years with advent calendars containg allways city minifigs and trees.

@DLuders: Thank you for taking your time and doing this research with all those links and pictures. Hat off to you for your patience selecting from those hundreds. It helps a lot to get some orientation in the gallery. I wonder if next time in the gallery could be not only filtering/sorting by date "oldest/newest" but also "compliant only". Concerning the compliance to the rules I will add my two cents: Since also pictures and sketches are allowed, I do not treat models not using the chassis as not valid. But I do not like them, since usage of a chassis which makes the entry look better is a kind of unfair advantage. For me defintely invalid entries are copies of existing models or existing real designs of cars, since this is directly specified in the rules. I have no idea how to deal with entries with tracks: being strict, they are not according to rules, but model can be submitted with wheels and tracks should be put there as extras. May be we can get an answer from TLG so that authors will a chance to make their entries compliant since tracks seems to be very popular.

It is really funny bug, because there is no obvious collision boxes conflict and all other adjacent positions work. When one of those 2 parts is shifted one or more studs to sideways so they touch only partialy, it works, full touch does not.

Try to use pneumatic tubes or similar pipes to get desired effect if you do not have enough flex parts. It is probably not necessary to use only flex cables, mechanical axle similar to the one used in piston engine should also generate the wave effect. It can be stronger at the end of the tail to make it swing more.

Thank you, Conchas, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Is it possible to control PF motors using a mobile phone with appropriate application? Is there already some solution? I have found, that there are some audio jack based IR transmitters (like this) that can turn even a mobile without IR port into a IR controller. PF receivers operate at 38kHz. Principle of these audio based IR transmitters is simple - it is enough to play a proper audio file. Application should be able to generate proper audio signals based on the controls touched by the user on the mobile screen. From this point of view also the application is quite simple, once proper signals are known (in extreme case they can be recorded from the original PF transmitter). Does it make sense? Will it work? Or is there a better solution? That audio jack based transmitter contains actually only two IR diodes and some resistor to protect them. From this point of view, they are highly overpriced.

I did not changed the version number information, but download should give you version 1.2.7, so just download it.

It works without problems and keeps your votes. Just go to "My creations", select entry and on the detail click "Edit". It will be moderated again, so changes will be visible later.

Metallic materials are quite difficult to define and quite difficult to render properly. They reflect surrounding environment differently than a plastic material. When there is nothing to reflect for metallic parts, they reflect only white surrounding enviroment and this makes them look flat. I also did not find yet an environment, lighting and material definition that works properly in most cases, so anybody willing to help is welcome.

So we will have two RC models in 2013? One of them should be TC2012 winner.

I agree with this. The informations we get now and comunication oportunities combined with the widest part range ever we have now really good time for technic. When I compare this to what oportunities were available 20 years ago, this is a completely different level. Even without the internet, the part range and the new power functions make it much more fun than it was in the past. I wonder what TLG thinks. It is golden age for technic also from their point of view? Is it growing theme? Does it attract wider audience than it did a few years ago? I hope it is and they will make it grow further. Of course, it is more difficult, since technic does not get any "help" from some popular movie like SW or LOTR, but I hope it will grow. I also treat this year TC as a some kind of positive signal.

With this base plane file content: plane { y, min_extent(ldd_model).y texture { average texture_map { #declare Ind = 0; #declare S = seed(0); #while(Ind < 40) // higher number of iterations=less artifacts [1 pigment { ldd_colors[1] } finish { ambient 0 #if (version>=3.7) emission 0 #end diffuse 0.2 brilliance 1 phong 0.0 phong_size 20 specular 0.0 roughness 1 reflection { 1 } conserve_energy } normal { bumps 0.05 // smaller value = less blured reflection translate *100 scale 0.001 // scale it small(0.001) or big(1000) } ] #declare Ind = Ind+1; #end } } no_reflection } You can get floor that shows blurred reflections like this: Amount of blur is adjustable. Rendering of this base plane is much more slow than the rendering of the model itself.

Isn't this a question that should be asked and answered only when looking back in time? Technic these days is definitely nice. Models have smother shape thanks to panels, can be remotely controlled, so kids can built themselves RC cars and working machines. TLG definitely focused on the attractive part of the technic. Studless vs. studfull - both of them have some pros and cons and every body can select his own system. I personally like studless models and studless parts, because the allow to make more compact structures. They are not so stiff, but I do not expect to lift kilograms by LEGO crane. Looking strictly at the technic part, these days models are less technic. Supercar does not even have a gearbox. 1200+ parts and no gear box. Not even working steering wheel. 8860 had only 600+ parts, but from the technic point of view it was much more realistic. Old style working machines were powered by one motor or pneumatic pump and all energy was taken from that. Just like on the real machines. These days machines have many independent motors, no realistic transmissions. I understand why it is so and I consider it being good for the company and also for kids. Models have to be playable and atractive. After they play well, they can start studying mechanics and build their own realistic and more complex models focused on technical accuracy and realism. So golden age is probably a matter of criteria. I really enjoy technic these days. Many new models each year, each year new flagship, just like in the other themes. Increasing number of parts for the flagships is a good signal that technic line is getting stronger and I am glad it is so. Focus on atractivity and not so much on technical accuracy guarantees success on the market and also continuity of the technic theme. Without that, we would have technically pefect models, less playable or very expensive and due to lower sales there would be only two or three different models each year and probably one flagship sold for two or three years to cover developement costs.

INI files cannot contain scene elements, they are just for parameters for the rendering. But try this: 1. Create a file named ldd_wood_floor_base_plane.inc. You can choose any name, LDD2POVray looks for a files named using pattern ldd_XXXXX_base_plane.inc. File has to be created in the same directory as you use for the other LDD2POVRay include files. 2. Put the floor code there: #include "woods.inc" #declare Floor_Texture = texture { pigment { P_WoodGrain18A color_map { M_Wood18A }}} texture { pigment { P_WoodGrain12A color_map { M_Wood16B }}} texture { pigment { P_WoodGrain12B color_map { M_Wood18B }} finish { specular 0.25 roughness 0.02 reflection { 0.1, 0.3 } } } plane { y, min_extent(ldd_model).y texture { Floor_Texture scale 5 rotate y*90 rotate <5, 6, 5> translate z*15 } } 3. Save the file. 4. In the converter, on the Scene tab check the "Use custom base plane" checkbox and select the "ldd_wood_floor_base_plane.inc". The file name will be offered only if named according to that pattern and placed in a proper directory. Converter will use wood floor instead of the default plane. Since version 1.2.5 has a bug and ignores this checkbox , you have to download latest version to make this work. To get more textured and less "glassy" wood use this definition: #include "woods.inc" #declare Floor_Texture = texture { pigment { P_WoodGrain18A color_map { M_Wood18A }}} texture { pigment { P_WoodGrain12A color_map { M_Wood16B }}} texture { pigment { P_WoodGrain12B color_map { M_Wood18B }} finish { specular 0.15 roughness 0.02 reflection { 0.04, 0.06 } } } plane { y, min_extent(ldd_model).y texture { Floor_Texture scale 25 rotate y*90 rotate <5, 6, 5> translate z*15 } } When combined with HDR lighting, rendered image may look like this:

The video review was much more fun than those standard monotonic and boring deep man voices commenting a set during a review.

I like the doors and how you build the fake engine. It nicely fills the engine area.

I don't know how many similar oportunities you have, I personally would lend them the model for that half a year. This is for you a good oportunity to present yourself and also to present LEGO Technic. I am sure you have many inspirations for models using other colors and half a year is not that long. May be it will bring you requests also from other, this time paying people, wishing to have their favourite car displayed on the table or in the showroom. Even if not, it still will make you feel proud. You actually owe this to them a bit, since you copied their design.

This is due to reflections. White surrounding environment (background) is reflected by the body which makes it look dark gray. You can try this behaviour also with real bricks: build a wall out of black bricks and try to place some piece of white paper near the wall. Areas where the paper is reflected will not be so dark black as the rest of the wall. In POV-Ray when background is set as transparent, it's color is still taken into account when computing reflections. So in your case the white was reflected. You can try to select black background color (of course transparent). The artifacts on the minifig face are caused by the fast radiosity.

Really nice. I like them. Excelent way to show art of technic also to people, which are not fans of working machines or fast cars.

I would not expect to be able to lift 9kg using a crane with such construction. Really very impressive. And the ability to move with full load makes it even more realistic. Bricks are stronger than beams. They bend less than beams.

This was my first (and only) Technic set from my childhood. It was dificult to get any LEGO in former Czechoslovakia before 1989, so to get hands on Technic it was like a miracle. It took me 4 hours to build the main model. And with those, for these days "only", 600+ parts I was able to build a lots of models just from the pictures from catalogues. Really a great set. Just those differential gears were easy to break. Thank you for the review, you brought my memories and I will probably try to complete my model again.

Yes, I know this one. I asked you, if you will post also the pictures of that 9398 version to the TC2012 gallery.

Do you have also pictures of that new version? Will you post it to TC2012 gallery? Because with that high chassis it will look probably much differently. There are already some entries which look like a Landrover.

The solution for you depeneds on level you would like to work on. On the lowest level, BT communication is a sequence of bytes written to a BT port and reading response. That is what you see as those 0x00 0x03 ... examples. But nobody want's to program like that. So task for the library writer is to give some nice names to these sequences and pack them into functions. From that you see commands like readSensor, runProgram etc. Select on which level you actually want to work and we can try to help you. DLuders showed you the best link directly from LEGO website. In appendix 1 of the BT SDK you will find the codes and byte sequences for the low level operations. In apendix 2 you can find byte sequences for basic operations like playing tones or reading sensors. If you have this a some school task without any experience in this communication area, it will be difficult. You will have to learn not only communications basic but also the protocol used by the NXT.