Lipko

You can find it in my Brickshelf gallery. I don't dare to post a direct link to it.

Beautiful. My heart brakes when I look at it next to my Audi. I have too lot to learn.

I usually do the same. And it's advised to start with the hard and/or conceptually new parts, because they might be bigger than expected or not work at all, and you have to throw away the whole idea.

Maybe you should post some pictures. In my last build, I also had trouble linking the front and the rear axes (both was built with the "new" hubs). The problem was that the front suspension is naturally 5 studs high while the rear is 3. Then I realized that I just need to use the older hubs for the front from the 8070 supercar which has 3-stud high suspension, and after that it's was a breeze to build a solid chassis. Maybe the problem is similar to yours.

Modularity make designing easier and harder at the same time. Changing/improving/rebuilding the models is much easier if the model is modular, but modular design can take up a little more space (because of the interfaces between the parts). Or I'm just not experienced enough.

Whenever they look cool. And usually they look cool (for example I used them for insect models too).

For rotating a video, just look for online video rotating websites. I usually use these free online tools for simple tasks like this (and I always check if they are trustworthy by typing the domain name and "trustworthy" into Google...). For editing I use MAGIX Video easy HD. It's primitive, and it costed maybe 20 bucks, but it's good enough for me (I see that it costs 50 now, and that's not that cheap...). The main feature it has and Windows movie maker doesn't is a working playback feature . MAGIX Video easy HD has a 30 day trial, the only restriction is that you can only have 3 minutes of video. But with I guess there are free online tools for stitching videos together too. I suggest you to spend a little money on an editor.

I usually don't like huge models but this one is just awesome. Reminds me of Mecano models.

rotate the old beam with 90° (so it's vertical). I don't think you can fit them otherwise with straight studs-up build.

What do you mean?

The combo I posted worked for me on white parts.

This is my favourite in the contest. It's cute as a puppy.

I'm not sure, I think I used the traditional (the cheapest and most common household one) which ruins teflon, but it was not brand new. You don't have to scrub the piece strongly.

I'm one of the overly ambitious and I do put too much steam into a single project, but the reason is the lack of time and space for me. I just don't have the energy to build every evening, can't "arrange" (or dunno) to have a whole weekend for building, and also I don't have to space for multiple projects (and of course the parts this would need). So I don't dare to waste my time on quick, medicore projects (though most of my project did end up being medicore). I feel that I'm on the way of burning out. My best idea to effectively continue this hobby is to apply for a Technic designer position. Actually, I will do that, but my chances are very thin.

Thank you for drawing my attention to this set, I will buy one (or two) for the black bits (I wish I were not lazy for Bricklinking...)

Cif cream +

Yes, they are harder to work with, even though there are many types of panels, they are very limiting (especially if you are making model of a specific thing).

A contestant, especially a non-pro does want some feedback on how he/she did in comparison with the others, but voting is a bit too biased towards large models, and that can be a bit annoying/disappointing. Sure, we always see smaller models among the winners, but those are always very outstanding models. For not so outstanding models, bigger is better most of the time (I'm not saying that big models are not outstanding, the TC7 winner was a winner for me, no doubt). Or I don't know, some stats from contests with no part limits (and excluding the model team one): [TSATS]: 3 small, 3 huge in first six [TC6]: 1 small, 3 big, 2 huge [TC7]: 2 small, 2 big, 2 huge Edit: okay, this seems quite random, and most entries fall in the middle/big range. Drawing conclusion: failed. I just have the feeling in most contests that middle sized interesting models are often missing attention.

I don't get it, Andy D, why you feel the need to apologize/explain yourself. Regarding the telling axle/beam length by eye, it only works for me up to 7 studs, because my OCD is stronger in case of bigger lengths (I feel the lengths, but I feel stronger need to audit)

As others have said, it really depends on why you build. I only buy sets for parts because I simply cannot afford to have big space for a collection. I can hardly get time to build my MOCs, but I like to build the sets too, to learn things and I like to build from instructions, but I don't want to leave the build and the pieces out for overnight. These lead to building as fast as I can. I still enjoy building from instructions, slow building makes me impatient.

I also build quickly (I only measured the building time for the 8110 Unimog which was 6 hours, 3-3.5 hours for the 42039 is about right too) so that means I'm immortal too. Good news for tonight.

Very nice toy, but that sticker

Maybe it's just me, but it is a lot of work. Building for "play" (I guess you mean fun or the experience of "flow" here) is maybe 5% of my building time, the rest goes for struggling with implementation. But that work has to be done to get that 5% of feeling high. Maybe it there wasn't internet and I couldn't see any of others' work, I would be less strict with myself. Anyway, nice collection, I wish I had such a collection, but I had maybe only two failed MOCs of real bricks. Not because I rarely fail, but because I rarely build something...

That's why I prefer contests with part limits.

Regarding the illegal thing, maybe it's not illegal, but I remember some arguing about that. The other problem with my gearbox was that it required long operation movements or too much force to operate (using connector with ridges). The other thing I didn't try is to use a linear rack to operate the switching mechanism istead of using a rotating mechanism, but I ran out of space. Maybe I should have a little less strict and either use smooth connectors and/or adding some clutch gears if the gearbox does stuck in two speeds. I'll post some LDD shots about my failed attempts.