Mikdun

Neat!

This. I'm disappointed that there is no single project leader (sort of) assigned to each model, that will coordinate it from start to finish, keeping the knowledge, requirements and agreements in one place. And taking care all is done and not left behind.

That's fault of your house, not LEGO.

Your model look so much better than stock! Only now it reminds me the cranes I saw around the construction sites (I know, they weren't LR13000 ).

It's true for resin formulations, but not so for the machines. A lot can be done by process parameters even on the crappy/used machine. And the other way round - if you don't know what you are doing even the best machine will not help. The quality issues are mostly from reducing cycle time. Now the land of rice and cheap labour has improved a lot. And Lego (as is the whole EU) is pushing to be ecological which in many cases forces to make worse products for customer. Lego is putting a lot of money into research and advertising, and this is mostly human work = costly in EU.

That is both ecological and economical reasons. The "mushy" and generally less resistant to damage plastics are the eco variant. But the sink marks (surface quality) is mostly cost driven.

Looks excellent, as all your creations. I love the attention to the details.

I like this idea.

@grum64, you story telling qualities makes reading this thread fun. And then there is some Technic as well. Keep it coming!

Thanks, I have blocked youtube at work. The model look great from all angles.

Would be nice to include at least one photo.

We have no reliable data (unless you did ask them) whether they are using it because they wanted to or because they have no other option. More options are great, some displayed feedback as well, but being forced to look away from your model is great disadvantage. It's surely fine for GBC module, train or some stationary machine, but for the rest it's better to see the model rather the screen. I might use it not clearly: tactile feedback from the remote, no force feedback style. I mean being able to move your fingers to another controls without looking at the remote.

Please read back what @PG52 wrote. When you have 42100 you have to buy stuff to make simple motor running without remote. Compare it to any PF set with remote, like 42065. Really? You are the first person I've heard that prefers looking at the screen over tactile feedback. Yes, but that's not the point here.

You have 4, each controlling 1 or 2 independent devices, to be precise. And with very limited range. It also reads: "Batteries not included" but doesn't tell you that they are required. Weird, eh? You keep repeating this, but let's face it: it's either you buy extra stuff or you cannot do it. It's totally different with PF, where you can simply rearrange items and they works without the remote. PU is doing a lot of thing great, but lack of proper remote is a big downside. I think you are missing the point. I have "Remote control" app for my TV. It works. It works even from another end of my home (it's connecting over wi-fi). But I cannot use it without looking on the screen. On the contrary, the physical remote can be used without looking on it, and the shape and size of buttons makes it possible do a lot of different thinks still without looking at it. Now which type of handling is better for playing with moving object?

Great model. Looks and (seems to ) work good. The rear light are very well executed, but the whole exterior design is very pleasing.

I second that!

Could not write it better myself. I'm actually working with tooling design and believe me, cheap tools are not precise. It's classic management triangle.

Dear @grum64, glad you're OK. Seems like you are a bit too determined during the builds.

True, in ma case at least.

Congratulations for the winners! But equally congratulations for all participants, this contest was on very high level, all the models are at least very good.

For me Alfa is much better.

Operating 42131 Cat D11T. But it's not about making tutorial now (not for me anyway), it's about what Lego should provide from the beginning. Then you will be limitin total booster current to what single port can deliver. Option 4 but smartphone only for configuration is missing.

Cannot agree more. Just Lego should give us few simple examples, like you did few pages ago. I got impression that you claimed Control+ is on the same level of user friendliness as PF.

OK, you are right, when I download the PDF seems to be full. How about "real guide" and not only list of blocks? Hope you see the difference. So good direction, but it's not here yet. No. What @allanp is proposing is SuperRemote. Here you have to use smartphone/Tablet to play with your bricks.

Yeah, I mixed those. Yes, but... It's just pure block description, and not even for all blocks! And it should be available from day one, not few years after launch. If you want to see what I mean for good documentation look for Commodore 64 users guide. Haven't seen any yet, but for sure there are some. Using your example, I set it up and what's next? Shut down the phone/tablet and my Cat will work without it? I'm not using anything other than stock Lego parts and programs. If I understand correctly You are showing that "programming" is not that scary (and I agree), but here device with screen is still necessary. Not if You use non-BT Powered Up box