gyenesvi

By the way, when I look at the frontage, I see only a few technic models every now and then. I have been wondering whether that's because there are only a few that hit the bar, or because the proportion of technic is that low on the forum, or what else? If I look at Rebrickable front page, I see much higher proportion of technic, so I am guessing there are more technic MOCs than the frontpage here would suggest. Just interested..

So if we believe that official Technic models are moving closer to scale modelling, does that have any implications on the rules when a model is considered a scale model? For example, I have just read the guidelines of scale modelling, and it says that purely technic models simply don't qualify, even if they look realistic and faithful to the real object, because they typically don't have enough bricks / system parts (although they have more and more): Built as advanced Model Team, mainly with bricks, plates and tiles, with high level of details and prime execution. Not purely Technic Would it be a good idea to reconsider these requirements, given the evolution of the technic models? For example, when I did this Willys Jeep alternate, I did try to get as close to the real one as possible, using a blueprint, reproducing key functions and visual features (with the part limitations that it is an alternate build). I wonder how far this is from being acceptable as a scale model? I don't own a lot of system parts in all colors, but I find it a good challenge to replicate real things mostly using technic parts, with a bit of system parts here and there. Or just look at that recently frontpaged REXX mining truck. It's almost all technic, but it pretty well modelled the real thing, I think. Maybe accepting these as scale models could add more life to the forum (independently of whether it's part of Technic or not). Any opinions?

Hmm interesting concept, thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, I don't see too much general usage for these, you can't really have generic pieces that you could curve the way you want. At best, some initially flat pieces parts could be curved in various ways along a single axis. However, that's kind of the use case that is handled reasonably well by the existing panels that I linked above. As soon as you want to curve things around two axes, the surface area changes, so the excess material would protrude in some direction. It only works if you have pre-cut pieces for a single target shape.

While I agree that the purpose of technic panels is to simplify bodyworks and save weight, I don't necessarily think that's the reason how they look, at least for wing shapes. I think with the same panel concept, their shape could be optimized such that they would connect better. By that, I don't even mean that they need to have more pin holes for connections, it would be enough if they could be placed next to each other such that there are no gaps between them and their surface could be made more continuous. Some panels are quite good the way they are, for example the ones that are curved along one direction (like this https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=24119#T=C). Their big limitation is that they only exist in 7L and 11L version . If they existed in all other odd lengths (exactly the same cross section, no need to design anything new), that would already be really great. Furthermore, a corner piece that could smoothly connect two of them in a perpendicular direction would also be useful. Are there other uses of such panels, than windows? I have never seen them.

This is a pretty nice alternate, I like the suspension and the simple bodywork!

Yeah, but that's normal, don't even expect to get the order right at first. What I do is I first place all the parts of a bigger unit quickly, using tricks like mirroring the sides to speed things up, and then go back to do the ordering into steps (using the step view, to see what will come in each step), thinking about how it would be logical to build it. It takes some getting used to..

That's a pretty cool remake, it did bring back old memories, I used to love this set! I really like how you managed to make it full suspension, the front section is a tight build, well done. Although it's quite faithful to the original, I kind of agree that the front came out a bit too rounded and looses a bit of it's rough style (it's like the difference between a classic Land Rover and the new SUV-like one). Maybe some system pieces at the front could bring it closer to the original square look? About studio, don't worry, you can get used to it quickly and your speed will improve a lot! Do invest in learning to use submodels as they help a lot, also for you when you build it, and makes the instructions cleaner as well. I flicked through the instructions and have some tips for improvement if you don't mind. The layout of the pages could be improved by decreasing clutter. Sometimes you try to cram too much info on one page, like two steps, or too much zoomed in. And the part list and page numbers often overlap with the model itself. Try to reduce that with moving things around, setting the zoom and rotation properly. It is quite a bit of tidying up boring work though.. Also, in quite some steps (especially when it gets dense, like in the front part), it's hard to see where things go and how the new parts are attached to each other and to the existing build. Submodels and showing their assembly in callouts (assembly of a few parts in a few steps in a sub-window on a page) help a lot with these. Also, rotating the model appropriately to make new parts clearly visible helps a lot. And sometimes you just have to rethink the building sequence just to make it easier to follow in the instructions. I think it's an art in itself, not something trivial :) Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Thanks for the longer detailed video, it's still quite informative even without understanding what you are saying :) I was also wondering about the dirt in the hubs. Is that dirt that the model collected because of outside usage, or is that plastic that was shaved off due to friction? The large movement gap of the hub may suggest the latter I'm afraid..?

I wasn't really thinking of going in a direction of more specialized large panels, neither a myriad of smaller panels. I think the problem of technic cars looking like broken china (which I think is an apt description unfortunately) stems from some types of panels not being designed for proper connections in all directions. Two examples are wing shaped panels and fender pieces. It is impossible to achieve continuity with them, as some of their edges are simply not designed to have connections, not even the shape of their edge can be complemented given the right piece placed next to them in the right spot: such pieces and spots don't exist; they are more like designed to be silhouettes on the edges of bodyworks. And I think that (lack of) design kind of goes against the spirit of Lego, not connectable, not really designed for building large surfaces. So I am hoping for some rethinking of those in the future and the emergence of a system which is more appropriate for building larger surfaces, better connectable, just like the system of flat panels, and ones that curve in only one direction. But that would require thinking in a _system_ of panels independent of actual models, instead of thinking in a new part required for the shape of the next supercar..

Although I agree with the others that system pieces are quite useful in technic builds (I really like creator expert style exterior and technic interior), I'd predict that the system of technic panels will evolve a lot in the future to get closer to system builds with simpler building techniques and less parts. I think (the system of) curved panels are still in their infancy and could and hopefully will be improved for building with less gaps.

Now that's huge! I like the amount of effort you put in it for details, although for me, the motorized ladder and door are a bit pointless, but I guess you had a lot of space, so why not :) I like the cooler build behind the cabin though! It's great to see the suspension at work under such a heavy model, it seems pretty realistic, I'd also be interested in more details. And also how the axles handle all that load at that speed :)

From a purist perspective maybe, but I don't think those who say this is too much say that from a purist perspective, more of a practical one I guess. This part can only be used to build the Sian, which for many (including myself), does go against Lego spirit. And I even think that the original build is not bad, it captures the curves nicely and the lines connect well, which I think is more important than covering all gaps, so I don't really see a great need for this piece. Even the drum of the cement mixer is better, because it does fill a need (you could not build that from existing parts), and as noted above, could be used to build another cement mixer (or a boat, as I saw on Rebrickable). On the other hand, SBrick and BuWizz do fill a need, and they can be used in building all kinds of stuff. Even now that TLG caught up with BT, there is enough void for BuWizz 3.0 to fill as a genuine need (and that's not even power, but rechargability, size, weight, number of output ports). Regarding mudguard pieces, I am also not completely satisfied with their general design, as to me it seems really difficult to make connections to them that have continuity of curves and lines, to my eye, there's always a break around them, like they are sticking out.

Wow, amazing job! Great design and functions, I really like the rear suspension and the drive train with the diff locking! Just curious, do those torsion bar axles have visible twist in them after running this model for a while? Or do they get twisted symmetrically in both directions and that cancels out?

Great, thanks! Seems to work now without delays. Indeed, having them rendered uniformly would make it easier to comprehend which one is which. I wonder the same quite often..

I do have fibre-optic internet too.. And the main images loaded instantly, just the pop-up ones were slow, that's why I thought there might something about those.

If I move the cursor over a wheel, it seems to be doing something like that already, for that specific rim and tire, right? It's a very useful feature, thanks a lot, do you mean to elaborate further on that? Just as feedback, those pop-up images seem to be loading very-very slowly, at first I thought they were missing or cropped (most of them only showed one quarter or half), but after a few minutes they did load. Not sure if it's just on my side.

This video (around 1:27) also speculates something like that, comparing this hub with the simple (non-Bluetooth) hub, in which that button seems to be missing:

Thanks! Unfortunately, it’s military, so no chance we get something like this as an official one. I did realize that the order is unrealistic, I just did not know what would be realistic, so thanks for that piece of info! It would be an easy fix though. Thanks for that as well! After almost finishing the build, I played with the idea that it could maybe have a bit narrower track. However, in order to do that, two things would be required: to make the axles shorter, and to move the leaf springs (the A-arms) inner (otherwise it would collide with the steered wheel), but that would require a complete rethinking of the chassis otherwise the internals would not fit in using the same construction. This might be achievable, but there are some details about a shorter axle which could not be achieved easily with the available parts. So I finally did not pursue this direction further. At the same time I tried with the virtual model to just move the wheels inwards one stud, just to see how it would look, it wasn’t bad at all :) But an advantage of these wide tires is that they still look quite okay with this wider track I think..

Thanks a lot! You are right, the gearbox order is reversed, so that when you start shifting gears, you can see the engine running faster and faster. For me this kind of makes sense in the original model as well, since it's not motorized, so what you can observe when you play with it is a reversed effect, the engine being driven by the wheels. That's why I kept this design. In theory it could be reversed just by swapping gears in two places (one to mirror the shifting front to back, and one to mirror it left to right). However, as the build is quite tight, at one point it makes use of the fact that a small gear is placed next to a medium one with some distance between them (they are different parts of the chain of gears, not meshed) and it does not cause interference. If you swapped that small gear with the larger one that it drives, those would collide. So you'd have to redesign the whole thing to avoid that. Thanks for that image about the original shifter, I did not have that. However, I think implementing the R as well would be problematic, as it introduces an asymmetry that would require quite a bit more extra gears and space, but curious if you can bring something out of it!

This is really good direction, I have been thinking lately that Lego is really missing some spacialized parts for building slim solid axles using these hubs. I guess one difficulty is making it flexible enough, for example to be applicable for various lengths. The above brick-built axle is also nice work, but has the same limitation unfortunately. Have you also been thinking about specialized parts for a steered version? I mean, if you simply connect A-arms to the tow-balls, that already makes the axle 5 studs high. I've been wondering if that could be slimmed down to 3 studs.. Or at least trim 1 stud from the bottom for higher ground clearance..

Thanks, that's what I focused the most on! Exactly, but I'm satisfied how symmetric it came out in the end.

It’s actually one stud longer, and as far as I know, it’s called an angular L motor. So yeah, I’d expect something smaller for an M. The one in the Volvo is the XL I think. Great motors though, and you can easily get 4 from a single Mindstorms set.

Cools looks, I like the use of the tiles on the body, nice shape! At the same time, I'm wondering how strong is it structurally? For example, I cannot decide what is holding the rear axle from moving front to back, as the links built from 2L pieces from the center of the body seem to be more cosmetic than structural (they would slide out easily I guess). Is it the springs that are holding it in place? Also, as there is no proper wheel hub, doesn't the wheel slide off the axle?

Thanks guys, glad you like it! Yes, it's like that in reality, so I'm more satisfied with the front one, actually it's the rear one that could be improved with a more round shape, but that's what was available in the set. Thanks, the suspension was the core point when I started this, as it's so nicely visible on this car, and was a good challenge to build it. Not sure I understand, what about them? Where do you think the gearbox should be positioned? Someone did this with custom stickers, not exactly as you say, but I think it's not bad: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-73674/gyenesvi/42110-c-model-willys-jeep/#photos I'm curious about that too, but I don't have large ones, and no rims that could fit the 3-pin hub. So let me know if you manage to do it!

That’s a really good point about the M motor! After the Volvo Hauler, I don’t think TLG would go with B. It would have been even easier for them just to put a fourth L motor there. But a new M motor with position encoding could explain part of the high price, and that existing PU M motor really does not fit into the PU line (also lacks some pin connections for technic builds), so I am really hoping for a revised version of it. Furthermore, a gearbox and locking differential are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, a low gear could at the same time lock the differential.