Lipko

That's not easy. Madoca's Wing body truck? Anyhoo, since the prize is ""only"" getting front paged, I don't really see point in making categories. If a model is good, it's good. Categorizing may lead to cluttering the Front page and making it pointless. Plus who will decide who is Pro and who isn't? I won a contest and I begged once to be blogged on The Lego Car Blog, am I a Pro then?* What happens if there are only a few new MOCs posted in a month, and none of them are Front page worthy? Because, say, they are photographed in the night on the carpet? I see no point in patting newbies of the back in that way. If a MOC is worthy, it gets Front paged. EDIT: I've just read the comment above and wanted to state: I don't feel like being a Pro at all. EDIT 2: Unrelated: Is there a Tag explaining topic, or at least could we can some tooltips on the different tags?

I agree with this. Only a very few MOC-ers can produce models in the quality you are talking about. Actually I do think that you are able to make models that are up to that quality, but you do build slowly... But maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not good enough to even judge the quality of Lego models.

There could be a MoY too. You can start looking for Mo2013

I agree with this. I was disappointed how quickly my winner models disappeared and never appeared anywhere, though there are some Technic blogs out there. I guess my models were only good in the scope of this particular contest? That would be disrespectful for the other contestants, but I'm still disappointed anyway (some other entries were actually blogged...) despite the medal icon under my avatar. Maybe next time the results and the entry topics could stay pinned for a little longer than 2 days from the results announcement. Most forums (game programming, for example) keep the results up for a month.

Drunk post eh? I'm thinking of a B model for 10220, but considering my building speed, it would be probably ready for 2015 January.

Please, not another DeLorean.

Excuse me, if it's already covered, but it would be useful to write about the system how positions affect each other. I'll try to explain with a few examples: *Moving multi-step groups on the page affects all multi-step placements. You have to manually add (type into the LDraw file viewer sidebar) 0 !LPUB MULTI_STEP PLACEMENT CENTER PAGE INSIDE .... after every 0 !LPUB MULTI_STEP BEGIN After this, you can individually drag the groups without ruining the other groups' placements. *When you have callouts and edit their placements relative to the assembly, then you add this step to a multi-step group, you can no longer position the callouts. That's okay, but somehow callout placements in multi-step groups affect callout positions it totally different multi-step groups in seemingly random ways, or resets the positions of previous steps? I'm not sure. To overcome this, you have to manually copy-paste 0 !LPUB CALLOUT PLACEMENT .... commands after 0 !LPUB CALLOUT BEGIN After this, you can individually drag the groups without ruining the other groups' placements?? Is there a better way to solve these position related issues? *in general, how do local margin parameters affect the instructions? For me, local margin changes don't have any affect of anything (not even the local affect I want in the first place) *It is very limiting that in multi-step groups you can't position the steps realtive to the PLI and each other anymore (and the positions are reset), like you can do for individual steps. I guess it's because the placement commands are overwritten with the auto-arrangement feature of the multi-steps, but I think it would be convenient for the users, and maybe the programmers too if there wouldn't be an auto-arrange feature, or it would only be "activated" when the command is given, but not when the LDraw file is parsed. (By activated I mean the positions data for the steps are calculated when the "add next step" feature is executed, and all pos. data is written in the LDraw file. And the file parser no longer executes any auto arranging of multi-steps). I hope I was clear... EDIT: The first two points seem to be caused by a general parser bug. I think the positioning commands (dragging for example) work by first checking for an existing command of the same type in the file (beginning from the current step and going upwards the file), and if it's found, only the command parameters gets changed. If a command is not found, the whole command line is added to the file. The problem IMHO that the parser doesn't stop when it reaches the previous STEP, or MULTI_STEP BEGIN or CALLOUT BEGIN command lines It can be solved by manually copy-pasting the positioning commands after the 0 !LPUB whatever BEGIN command lines.

Maybe TLG doesn't want to make Crowkillers' and Sheepo's and others' amazing gearbox designs to become obsolete

I wrote it in the 2014 blah blah entry too. The results showed AFOL demand (or more like interest). The winner entry doesn't do well on Cuusoo.

On the design Policy of TLG: I guess the market is like that. Remember my insects? That's not construction, it's something "unique" many of you said, it won an AFOL voting. Yet, 30 votes for the dragonfly on Cuusoo in three weeks... Big, or car, or Back to the Future, or big Back to the Future car, it sells.

Looks amazing! I also would love to see some pictures.

Yup, modular building is very handy, it's also much easier to improve the modules you wouldn't want to touch otherwise (like a gearbox in the middle of the car)

Yes, but that's really truth for Ackermann geometry and caster maybe (of course, avoid negative caster), or no?

Regarding the stability problem: we have only seen 2 pictures. Is it possible that the one of the probe flights was stable for the first two seconds?

Do these advanced geometry stuff actually affect the performance of Lego vehicles? I mean, Lego is wobbly, it's very hard to build tight constructions with minimal backlash. And in reality, as far as I know, these advanced angles mean pretty small deviations from the simple geometry. I wouldn't be surprised if the angles were smaller than the wobbliness of the Lego parts. Plus these advanced geometry is not straightforward to build from Lego, which usually means quite a lot of extra pieces, which means extra weight for the model, which in my opinion, affects performance more. So is there a point in making these, apart from realism? Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

@Phoxtane: You don't see the blue pins because the whole model is rotated with 90°. If you look more careful, all blue pins are there in both pictures, it's just the blue pins are not attached to the ends of both arm-pairs.

I agree with the gearbox thing, but in my next car, I will make a very simple, manual 2 speed gearbox, because it's no fun do drive a fast car around in a 20 m^2 room with my RC skills.

Video?

It's also better to use bigger gears in the powertrain, as smaller gears introduce bigger axial force to transmit the same torque, and bigger axial force means bigger friction between the gears, and also between the axle and the pinholes.

How are you going to make sure that the turntable and the central hub rotate at the same rate? Maybe you could use Suspension A-arms, but the construction would get messy quite fast.

-Finish the DTM car -finish the folding bike -second attempt on the telehandler with auto-levelling of the pallet fork -or nothing. I haven't built anything since the contest, and I don't miss building yet...

Is this the reason why Crowkillers' cars have been removed from Cuusoo?

Thanks for the comment! Actually it's not based on 8070, apart from being red and coupé. Different chassis, different functions.

Wow, that you for the comments!

Now, that IS something. It seems that the driving axle was made of Lego. I'm very curious how effective this was, or was it changed later for steel bearings.