Lipko

How about some kind of Team Death Match (without death)?

Hydraulic jacks (simulated with pneumatics and LA:S) are usually applied in a way, that they need to bear much more force than the required lifting force. It's easy to try out: lift something directly with an LA and through an arm. Attempt of clear explanation (I'm not good at that...) To put it simply: if LA:s were stronger (the internal clutch would be stronger), something else would break inside the model; or the LA:s should have been designed to be slow as hell, and that would be the cause of whining. Pneumatics is a totally different system with it's issues. I don't think hydraulics will ever be in Lego, maybe only for über-experts. Use more LA:s if you find it weak. And/Or shorter booms, and/or smaller operating angle of the boom. Engineering is about compromise.

This is pure awesomeness I love the functions and the macho look.

IMHO the majority of Techic builders have no clue about these MOC:s. So I don't think "the craze dwindling for official sets" because of these mean a big risk for Lego. I guess the prize-difference lies elsewhere, probably in production volumes. Lego won't bother with producing rare parts in big volume just for a little percent of Lego builders. Producing Lego is expensive, as moulding-dies (or whatevers) need to be replaced from time to time to maintain the precision of the produced pieces (according to wikipedia). So fewer pieces mean fewer replaces. But that may not be the case, I'm not a moulding production expert. Yes, but at least they have a choice. Maybe they only need a few parts for that model. That can be true even with relatively small (but carefully chosen) collection. Sometimes replacing parts is fine too (different color, maybe a bit of redesigning).

What about selling instructions? About how many did you sell in total?

DLuders: The third piece should definitely be an official part. I'm mostly a purist I guess, but some custom pieces would be okay I think. After all, Lego set designers invent new pieces (though sometimes I feel that they overdo it). I would only invent a piece if it could be used for more models than the current one, otherwise I would feel that it's only cheating and taking the easier root with a problem. If something can't be solved, maybe a rethinking/rebuilding of that complete sub-assembly is better solution than inventing a piece.

Would you post an example? I'm a flamewar and offending post dependant. No really, maybe I'm lucky and I am a member of only high quality forums, but I don't see much arrogance. (apart from some fun flamewars)

Take a look at how supercars use those red thingies. They are placed right between 2 beams, like this, so they can't pop out of the rings: Maybe I misunderstood, and that's not the issue... Maybe you just have to reinforce the structure. Try to use the shortest axles if possible, shortest distances between two beams, etc.

I would definitely go for bigger gears in non-power-funtcion models. zzzzz.. zzzzz.. zzzzz.. I think all the info is there, but maybe in not a followable manner. Anyhoo, hope that makes sense

I don't think that "everything else" is equal. For example the force on each tooth is smaller, since bigger radius means smaller sum force between the gears (if torque is constant) and more teeth are in contact so this force is divided even further. That means the gears are "stronger" (can cope with more torque). Less friction (at constant torque) seems to be correct, as the contact forces are much smaller on each tooth (and the more contacting teeth can't compensate that). I may be wrong though, studies about gears were long ago and I didn't really think it over... EDIT: I'm not sure about the friction thing now, as the friction force is smaller, but acts on a bigger radius. I guess other factors come in to play when calculating friction torque. (Morning=no habla england) On topic: I have never had the 40 teeth gear, but I always wanted one. It looks awesome.

It's almost like the Fellowship of the Ring with Saurus

I meant the second one. I will be fun to implement!

does the Chinook have folding rotor blades? I was thinking how would I implement that (your model was so inspiring, that I started to think about building a chopper). That would be an awesome feature. If I have time, I'll try to build a prototype. I was thinking about using a turntable as the swashplate, but maybe that would be too big and ugly.

Congratulations for the Winners! It was a nice contest with very good entries and I almost made it in the 6!

A nice photo compared to a rather bad one But the point is valid anyway, I thought at my first meeting with complete studless construction that "wtf is that shit". Now I couldn't go back t studded apart from some very limited aesthetic use, I wouldn't want to use it for the chassis either, even if it's stronger. Studless just looks neater to me. I think studless building is much more consistent too, because you can't avoid using studdless construction in some places, so it's better to build the whole thing in a consistent style. IMHO

6) 1 pts 8) 2 pts 15) 4 pts Edited a typo, I'm sorry

I knew it will be an awesome model. This one is great by itself, being an entry with a relatively short time to build makes it even greater. *continues to save money for the mog*

What is that piece you used for the swashplate? I recognise the non-rotating part but not the other one.

There's an earlier video about the same model than the contest on your youtube channel, and the rules say that the model has to be new, meaning never posted anywhere before the contest. You were unlucky, that model is truly remarkable!

A schematic picture, I hope it's clear.... I don't have the components and the time to build it, but I think this should be possible and quick to build Ahaaa How about using the white 24 teeth gear with clutch? The motor drives the pump and the white gear, the white gear operates the pneumatic switch. My last idea, I still have no idea what could be the problem with your solution.

Hmm. Without videos or images or a very precise description of the problem and the mechanism, it will be hard to tell anything. The mechanism seems too simple to go wrong if its components work. I can think of a solution that simplifies the thing: just switch the battery box and the pneumatic switch simultaneously with some simple linkage. Or maybe use the technic electric switch, it should be fairly easy to connect the lever of the pneumatic switch with the lever of the electric switch. (BTW, although the solution posted in the previous posts is clever, I think it's a bit too clever...)

It's an awesome MOC, too bad you couldn't enter the contest, it would be a very strong entry.

Post video.

Maybe I misunderstand the problem, but the pump doesn't care about the direction of the rotation, since it operates with linear motion, and only produces pressure if it is pushed. The rotation direction doesn't matter. The whole assembly can malfunction in many ways. *Do those knobs (dark grey rotating things) operate the same way as seen on the video? *Are the pneumatic connections tight and secured? *Does the piston work in both ways? (try with a simpler assembly) *What does "the switch is working properly" mean? Does it work "standalone" or does it work in the assembly as seen on the video?

Youtube channel Paper modeller software development blog Brickshelf Gamedev.net Journal (programming stuff)