Lipko

Hi all! I have a problem with the buffer exchange method in MLCAD. I could make animated parts ("insert this part here") by using buffer exchange and I got correct results in the Bill of Materials section on a page, meaning the correctly placed part(s) in the step are not listed in the BOM, only the hovering (not yet placed) parts in the previous step. However, I can not do the same if the hovering pieces are added together in multiple steps (like in the instruction style, where instead of sub assemblies, the building steps are continuing and a different part of the model is built and later added to the rest of the model). I don't know how MLCad knows that some parts are not new parts, but only a correctly placed part that was in previous steps. Does it only work when the the two animation stages (hovering vs. correctly placed) are in two steps in sequence? Or does a special copy/duplicate command on the parts have to be used? (in the simple cases, a ctr+c/ctr+v was enough). I hope my explanation of the problem was understandable, thanks for any responses in advance!

Wow, there are some stuff happening in the 8888 idea book.

Same here. It happens 100% of the time with me though. The first (if I recall correctly) defective piece was in my current purchase, the 42000, a fake engine cylinder piece was dropped on its edge I guess, it had a 0.5 mm protruding piece of plastic with a depression next to it, but I could carve it with a knife.

I don't keep sets for display because there's no much space and not enough money. I only buy sets when I need specific parts so sets survive fully assembled for a few hours or maybe a day. Lately I don't even build the B models, which I did before.

Well, maybe it's just my bricks, but the small shoulders on the H frame (because beams in general are a bit wider in the direction of the holes) always caused me trouble. Not in every actuation and not under stress, but under stress it keeps popping and sometimes it can completely jam. But maybe I was building something wrong.

You can make the A-arms stronger. I attempted to make a Hummer some time ago, here's the suspension from the bottom: As Zblj also showed, the key is to turn the lower A-arm upside down, so it can't pop out of the hub. The biggest weakness of the design was the steering, the steering rods could pull out the ball-pins from the gear-rack due to the high suspension travel, so it's better to use the rack upside down too in that case. A side-note Zblj's solution: the gear rack placed on the frame part like that can jam under stress. Make sure that the gear rack has a smooth base.

I don't understand what you want to achieve and if the proposed or your solutions work or not. What do you want? To slide the yellow axle by rotating the red one? Have you tried your/others' solution with real bricks? Does it work or not? Is the yellow worm gear supposed to substitute the gear rack? What's the problem with gear racks? I don't understand your explanation on that. Could you explain what you basically want to achieve? Explain the feature, not how you want to achieve it. What's the problem with the many crane boom designs you can find on the web by the way?

Hmm, the car will have some very nice proportions. Especially the back and the roof. I love that the roof is a bit curved, Technic car models tend to have a too flat roof.

I dare to say otherwise. I will put some negativeness here, but the Land Rover is much better in my opinion. Not that this model is not great, but the Land Rover was more balanced IMHO. For me, this kind of body-filling works on sqare cars, not really on curved ones. Apart from the improved gearbox, it doesn't intruduce much more than we have already seen from Sheepo. A fair amount of envy talked.

I just can't get over my envy.

Hmmm, I have just abandoned a forklift project now, the mast was very similar. I felt it was too similar to the 8416.

Learning how not to do things is just one thing. I still haven't learned how to do things then. So I just cry in my bed all day long.

Why don't you start your own thread about it?

If large linear actuator means larger than the current, then I'll wait for it and push my big project further in time.

Yup, just seen Zoli's yellow one at the recent exhibition.

Looks good, the chassis became beautiful, but the roof is somehow off. I think it should be 2 or 4 studs wider. I'd love to see the hood in red, because the overall style of the body is lovely, and the hood can't be seen well in black, it's like there is no hood at all (okay, I know it is a characteristic trait of the car, but I miss the hood anyway).

How about this part? (Technic Chain Thread) I just started to build a forklift. I'm still not sure to use chain or string. String is not only stronger but it's easier to attach and route. Chains are not applicable to 8 teeth gears and 16 teeth gears are a bit big. Multi-section lifts can get huge real fast.

3) Some CADing (LDD) then prototyping then refining then re-digitalizing then CADing (new stuff or refining the prototype) then prototyping..... Some parts are easier for me to do in software some are easier to do with real bricks. Okay, this method was true for only my last too finished models, but they were much better than the previous, only real brick built models. LDD can be very quick to model, almost as quick as with real bricks (at least for me). Making big modifications is much quicker in LDD than in real life, where I have to greatly disassemble the thing to change something.

So, all of these features are for performance, or for realism, or for just their awesomeness? You should decide, because if it's for the performance, then you are doing it wrong and you should remove all the fancy stuff and go for simplicity as much as you can. It seems that your goals are not clear enough.

Criticism is welcome, it's good to see here other opinions than hyping You stated your opinion, not as an absolute truth. I asked about Crowkiller's models to know your preference. You have the same criticism about his cars, it's enough for me. Your preference is different than mine, because I like the style that I'm building, I hope I can reach Crowkiller's level some time (I could mention many other builders, but he is an obvious example). Gaps are unrealistic but well placed gaps can add much to the design and a Lego model can actually be more interesting than I real car. I personally don't care about real cars at all. And don't care about Model Team style or every-hole-is-filled-whit-whatever style either. So it's just a matter of taste.

Thanks for bumping :) AKM, don't you like Crowkiller's models either? http://www.crowkillers.com/model.php?model=vampire-gt

Thanks for the comments! I don't think I could have included 4wd, as I wanted to make as realistic body as possible, so the steering axis had to be as close to the wheels as possible. Currently it's inside, so the wheels turn very nicely. Rm8's car is also 1+1 studs wider, which would put my car out of proportions. LDD file: I will polish a few things and I will give it to anyone who asks, but I won't release it because the flex cables and the new small panels are missing from LDD, and there are only placeholders for the PF elements. Maybe I'll also make instructions for the model, but I need to switch to another program.

Hi all! I was building the last few days, and the result is this: It's a small remote controlled rally car. It's not based on any particular real-life models. Features: Drive PF L motor Rear wheel drive through a differential [*]Steering PF servo motor Ackermann geometry Working steering wheel Check out the brickshelf folder too! Video will come soon, after I will have learnt to drive...

I don't think it is a strict term. I like to use just "car" for my models. Other builders use the term "supercar" for my models more frequently, I think the size matters the most in how most people call these models. My cars are big, have some (fairly standard and easy to implement) features, so it's a supercar. I personally have never seen a small scaled model called supercar, no matter what features it had.

Forget Ackermann and concentrate on the effect: the inner wheel has to turn more (bigger degree) that the outer wheel, and not the other way around