Lipko

No, I wouldn't be able to. I'm not creative enough to solve things like this in this scale. I'm struggling with a gearbox for a much bigger scale car with the same setup. Sorry for the depressed comments. I'm about to fail again with a model, and with my building performace of two models per year, that's pretty upsetting. I like the style of this build, the only very small thing I didn't like about the previous version is that the chassis had many eye candy but not actually structural elements. And in my opinion, for a Technic chassis, function is a priority. But it's beautiful anyway.

I could never design anything like that.

At first glance I read "two hot hamsters"...

I started to design a sport seat for my supercar MOC, and after several versions, the result is almost the same as the seats in this model. I didn't want to copy the design, but the looks and how things are solved are almost the same. This means that this is the perfect sport seat design :P

I think the lack of interest can be summed up lime this: -TL;DR - pics or didn't happen

That looks awesome so far!

I used a similar setup in my second MOC

No, it's not fair. White is the new Red. (orange is still too hard to build with. I'm pretty amazed how that model achieved the awesome look with orange, though I can see some weak connections and not fully constrained panels, but that's not a result of the orange color.)

LDD doesn't have such a function but you still can make images like those if you use an image editor too, such as Photoshop or Gimp. For making such images, you usually play with the Hide tool in LDD and make screenshots of the various non-hidden part-setups without moving the camera (varying what's hidden and what is not on a screenshot), then you copy these images on top of each other in an image editor software that supports layers and then you can play with the layers' opacity values to create that effect. Then simply you save/export the images as .jpg, or .png or whatever regular image format.

I don't fully agree with that since we are talking about parts that beign discontinued only in a specific color (um.... why do we think that? because they didn't reappear since some years when the red color became rare anyway and there were one set where they could have used those but haven't for some reason?). I agree with you if one designs with totally discontinued parts (like this: ) or using many parts that vere expensive even when they were produced and used in official sets (can't think of good examples now). You can easily check if there are rare parts or parts you don't have before buying instructions, so I don't think "unexpected problems" apply. Maybe rarity of parts should be mentioned, or Rebrickable sould introduce a "now rare" tag on the parts or something.

Oh, my bad, I didn't pay attention and the height of the gear rack teeth are not the same. Or at least that's what PKW wrote.

Not everyone here is an educated mechanical engineering with fresh knowledge of gears. Of course if the term is used as in engineering, the profile is not different. But if we use the everyday term, then the profile (as "shape") is different, because the height of the teeth is different.

I'm making a supercar too with the same setup (gearbox behind the rear axle). I'm very curious how you will build the gearbox, my model will be maybe twice as big as yours, still the gearbox sticks too far out of the rear. The chassis looks very pretty so far, it would be an awesome model even without a gearbox. For the fake engine, you could use this idea too: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=109214

Using the built-in image stabilization can have some funky and pretty bad effects. Usually the bright/focused object (probably the model) tends to be fixed to the view to a pretty big extent, meaning the model won't shake or even move for a while, but the whole background will. Even if the camera is fixed and you want the model to actually move on the image . The view will try to follow the model. The stabilizer even scales the view so that the bright/focused patch it detects don't change size. And that's awkward with a model that does change it size rapidly. One of my videos have this unwanted effect, I simply forgot to turn the camera's feature off, and it wasn't my camera, so couldn't record the scene again. Youtube's image stabilization behaves very similarly.

It looks quite perfect to me.

Hmm, when did the title change to Lipkos Lamborghini Aventador? Unfortunately, I'm not the designer of that awesome model.

That Eldorado isn't even a good example for building in studdles in my opinion. It has mostly flat surfaces built with stacked liftarms with all those gaps where the round liftarm-ends and round connectors meet. Those flat surfaces would look nicer it they were completely smooth, and I don't see how that is not possible with studded parts. Sheepo's Defender or Lucio's MOCs are good examples of well-executed studdles flat surface building, and there only a few models that do liftarm stacking well. So yeah, in my opinion square cars are easier to make with studded parts.

For me, a fully studless model is much more consistent looking that a mainly studless with many studded parts. I would only use studded pieces is absolutely necessary. If mixing the two then I prefer mainly studded models with many studless parts that the opposite. I will never build mainly studded models simply because I already have a pretty good studless parts pack and doing the same with studded would mean a huge money and space investment.

I agree with aol000xw and I still envy the crap out of people who has this problem.

Maybe a knob gear with some ladder-like thing would work as gear-rack.

Some feel disrespected but I feel that I am still not on the map...

Francesco's models are the best looking in my opinion. It was a bit strange that TLG called him "a new entrant into the premier league of supercar builders" with his awesome other models, including this. TLG seems to forget about their blogees... Anyway, I do think he builds the best looking models, but some of them seem to be too fragile.

I used the 16 link in two of my mocs as links. They look better than liftarms, it's a shame they don't come in LBG so they look old and dirty near LBG pieces.

That's sweet! Post some pictures too so that Jim can frontpage it :)

I think the angle limitation can be solved with the basic collision detection LDD already has, no need to have separate data. Plus I don't think every part is added to a huge database and connectivity matrix, I think having having some kind of invisible connecting primitives added to the part models is a better way. Every part has a visible and collision meshes (I guess they are the same) and have some connection primitives too, which are invisible and override collision near or inside the connection mesh (I guess) in case of a connection is found. The connections doesn't have to be perfectly aligned for LDD to recognize it's a connection, so I guess for recognition, LDD uses a simple cylinder-cylinder collision detection method (and I also think that the snapping feature is separate from the recognition feature. The snapping perfectly transforms the parts). I can imagine that you only need a few types of the connection primitives and pairs. Maybe the stud+pinhole restriction between two parts is simply solved by maximizing the allowed contact number of such type to one. I have another argument against a connectivity matrix on a part-by-part basis: Unimog tire and rim bug. If they are not orientted in the same way (the polygon-approximated connecting cylinders are not in the same angle), LDD detects it as a collision. I guess the tiny, but numerous collisions of the corners in the approximated circles collide.