Lipko

I don't understand your point either. You seem to be picking random details to fit your prejudging of what's more complex in Lego and what's less complex. By your logic I quoted, Lego transmissions are much more simplistic than real ones. Since there's much more to a gearbox than the number of gears and driving rings. Syncronizing-rings, healical gears instead of straight gears, more sophisticated gear-swithing mechanisms (for example switching reverse), etc. Lego suspension can be as complex as you want it to be. And mimicing all those angles you mentioned, usually a more complex Lego solution is needed than a real suspension.

We watch JANGBRiCKS reviews wth my girlfriend all the time.

Depends. It's much easier to make the body of existing cars with few panels and more connectors+flex axles than building a mostly panel-filled body. It is much easier to build custom models than real ones from mostly panels (at least for me. Two examples of the first two techniques: V12 Coupé and Audi RS5) By the way, I think there is a 4th and 5th distinct building style. I don't really like the 4th style but seems to be popular, (so it's just my opinion): -filling the gaps in the body with whatever that fits there. Heavy, looks messy, but somehow most people are too much hole-phobic and they forgive this messy look. -fully filled body with panels + stacked beams. Only a very few builders (BrunoJJ, SpiderBrick) are masters in this. Looks very realistic (it's hard to tell it's Lego at first glance). For some reason, quite many people dislike stacked beams. Is it "inherently" bad because of the fact that the accumulated height of stacked beams is not precisely an integer multiple of a modulo? I have to add that I love models made with this technique, but I would never use it. myself... My English is quite poor tonight.

By the way, if we are at self requests, I'm a little dissapointed that my contest-winning windup-insects didn't make it to the HoF, even though it was explicitly stated a few times that contest winners will be posted in the HoF. Those insects got forgotten so quickly, I don't get it how so unremarkable models could win a contest. Feeling even pricker.

People are too nice here, especially with forum members, to tell give you true feedback. Here's some: -the shape of the wind-shield is totally off, how can't you see that? -the overall shape is quite off (the model simply isn't recognisable) -the shapes of the body are messy, edges are jagged, stacked beams rarely look good, especially if they could easily be replaced with panels. Don't tell me you don't have panels. The good designers spend time and money on parts that they need. -it seems that the doors can positioned in any pose, which is not realistic -the interior is very very messy and unrealistic (DAT steering wheel!!!11 DAT seat!!1). 2 pages of explanation in the video won't change that. Good designers know how to balance looks/authenticity/functions -otherwise the functions are pretty good. But you must not abandon the looks, or otherwise it will only be some proof-of concept-like model. And yours doesn't have any new/interesting concepts. I feel myself a prick now.

That looks to be designed for red panels and the new double pin-axle part. it was used everywhere.

This is the winner for me, though I am a bit biased towards Tomik's models. One little thing: can you somehow change the color of the blades? It's really hard to see them.

You mean what parts? Anyhoo, management employees are probably not too happy about engineers, engineers are not too about with the management team, workers are not too happy aqbout the engineers and management team, and no one is happy about the Information Technology team....

My jet-ski and dragonfly was mart, not ordinary ... out of the box, novel, never seen before

I guess there is some testing too. Testing new parts, monitoring the quality of manufactured parts, which requires statistics: fancy/popular/in-house-invented methods to randomly pick specific number of parts from the production line. Testing probably include endurance tests like in IKEA when they bend a part 100.000 times then thoroughly inspect the part after the test, act (inform the quality department, the constructor, the moulding guys, whatever) if a part is failing or too many parts are failing or a part is failing just before package etc. Endurance tests involve automated test benches, which are operated by PLCs, or computers, maybe actuated by pneumatics/mechatronics systems. These "product monitoring" tests require a pretty good database management, new parts may require new devices/adapters for the test bench etc. I guess there are endurance tests for connecting parts, inserting pins, and that can be quite tricky to engineer. And this product monitoring applies to everything else. Rubber parts, boxes (maybe no endurance test here), plastic bags, sticker printing, part painting, booklet printing, etc. I don't know about environmental requirements, but tests may involve climate tests (like cooling parts to -20 °C then heating them to +50 °C and see if a part with a new mould cracks). Not to mention working with plastic. Chemistry, thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, micron-precision (3D?) measurement of the moulds because they are being worn. Worker safety (working with chemicals, heat, big machines, moving materials, etc). These are just some small random segments I could think of at the moment (I work as a test engineer, can you tell)

Oh noes. I just have the idea to build such a model for days now. I didn't know it has a name, but crawling+baja would be an awesome idea and would need some interesting adjustable suspension. Suspension, where the travel is basically the same but can be soft for crawling or hard for high-speed racing. I think I will end up with a regular buggy though, if I will ever have time to build...

You can insert ball pins from both sides into the part with stoppers too (I do that pretty frequently). Or I am living in a parallel universe. EDIT: I'll check it when I get home (the part, that is)

Changing the gearbox elements seems to be a pretty big change. I wonder it the current system will be discontinued making so many MOCs, even the most recent and modern ones outdated.

Supported. Awesome plane.

It's not that hard to mix something up in a build. And think about who is selling complete sets. Probably not AFOLs. So someone gets a Technic set from his nice wife for Christmas, Builds it without enough attention, mixes something up (like a flipped differential, that most of us have had it wrong at least once in our "careers") probably notices the fault but not enthusiastic enough to rebuild the whole thing, and sells the sets since it's not working, and not that interesting (since his not an AFOL) to keep it (or it is even embarrassing to keep, since it's not working). So I think if you buy assembled sets, the chance that it's built wrong is significantly higher than the average.

Oh I see now, some dataflow like language. I'm pretty sure there's a conditional block or something, google for "conditional" + the programming tool/language's name

It's not clear for me what you are asking. Do you ask about the API, about sematics of Mindstorm programming, about the algorithm to use to limit the channel id, or about using the hardware, or how the implement the whole feature from zero.

It can be done, if the steering links are not parallel with the axle. Though this makes the suspension weaker.

You need something like this? if(right_button_pressed AND channel_index < 3) then channel_index = channel_index +1 end if ? anyhoo, deeplink the programs please.

I don't draw sketches and that must be an important reason why I can't solve semi-advanced mechanical problems. This may be a reason for the totally backwards problem solving (trying random pieces to see if it solves the particular problem)

Um..., if NK is considered to be disqualified, Tomik should be pretty damn disqualified too

I ditched the idea of solving the crab/4-wheel steering mechanically because of the slack in the system. But some time ago someone posted an awesome idea to solve it: Use two pieces of steering servo motors for each wheel-set, and simply add a pole reverser to the motor that's moving the rear axles (or just use the reverse button on your remote control unit). By this way you have two independent motors that you can control at the same time (by connecting the remove control arms for example), you can switch steering mode even if the axles are steered, the electronics will sort everything out. The only reason I don't use this system is that I'm building a manual model.

Would be a nice parts pack

Thanks for the comments. Yes, I am talking about the so-called shock absorber (see picture), not the more realistic and fragile transparent shock absorber dumper thing.

Hi all! What do you think, is it legal to keep the shock absorber completely compressed by default in a model? I want to make a boom where the lifting capacity would be (hopefully) increased by adding some shock absorber parts which would pre-lift the boom. This means that the shocks would be compressed most of the time, and this can lead to some relaxation. I have no experience/knowledge how Lego springs (and the stressed assembly) behave in such conditions, and I wonder if it's considered legal or illegal. Thanks for any comments in advance!