Blakbird

In all these years, I think you are the first person to actually notice that! Of course I realized this when I made the logo, and you may notice that I carefully placed the text over the top of the gear teeth so you can't see that they don't mesh. I chose those gears because they look good and have distinctively different styles. Very non-Technic of me. Thanks to all of the responders. Sometimes I forget that there is a big difference from how I imagined Technicopedia in my mind and what it ended up being. When I started it, I imagined fully cataloging all the models right up to the present (which was 2007 at the time) and then keeping it up to date as new models were produced What I ended up with was a resource that was always historic in nature. I started it when Technic was 30 years old, and when I stopped updating it 10 years later, the newest models documented on it were 15 years old. At no point was I ever writing about models in current production. I did do some of that right here on Eurobricks when reviewing new models, but as some have pointed out, a "review" is somewhat of a different animal than what I was doing on Technicopedia which was to document history. Again, in my imagination I would have eventually incorporated some of that EB review material (I did lots of CAD pictures of how various functions worked) into Technicopedia when/if I got to those models. So it may not have turned out exactly like I intended, but the response to it was more significant and positive than I could have imagined, and it opened me up to a whole new community. My very post on EB was for introducing Technicopedia! I don't regret any of it, and I'm proud of what I produced even if it stays just like it is now forever. And by the way, it is very nice to hear from some of my old friends again. Glad that so many of you are still here and remember me. I never graduated beyond MLCad. Looking back through my posts, the last thing I modeled myself was the Lamborghini Sian, and I did it all in MLCad in a week with perfect alignment on everything. That takes a certain amount of planning and skill that is very different than what is needed for a newer relational tool. It's good for the brain! Sadly, I no longer have a computer with any of that old software installed and it is a bit daunting to think about trying to recreate it. I had all kinds of customization in my part library, my POV-Ray color palette, and my MLCad part sorting categories. I probably have backups somewhere....

Thanks for the kind words so far. I apologize if my message gave anyone the wrong impression about the future, so I'll be perfectly transparent. It is extremely unlikely that Technicopedia will ever be updated again. Even if I were to have the time and inclination, I simply don't own any of the models anymore and, for the newer models, have never owned or built them. That makes it impossible to write about them in any useful way. My question is more about the future of what has already been written. Should I preserve it as a reference for the past, or has it been overtaken by more useful modern resources? Is comparing the helicopters that were made 30 years ago of any benefit in deciding whether a helicopter made in 2025 is any good? I'm not sure. The expense involved in maintaining the site in its present static form is pretty minimal, so if people are still using it and/or find it valuable, I'll keep it intact for the foreseeable future.

Hi all. Those of you who have been on here for a long time may still remember me. I created Technicopedia in 2007 and worked on it on and off until 2016. In that time, I wrote about all the models from 1977 to 2001, and then at least cataloged the new models from 2002-2016 even though I never wrote about them individually. The intervening 10 years from 2017-2026 are not addressed at all because I don't have them (and because of other reasons including life changes and moving onto other hobbies). I lost what was left of my original collection in a fire in 2022, so now I have the original four 1:8 cars which were hanging on the wall and the supercars which happened to be in storage in a different location. Over the past few weeks, I have reassembled those cars for display (956, 8860, 8865, 8880, 8448, and 8070) which got the old juices flowing again so I went out and bought the McLaren P-1 and the new Koenigsegg Sadair's Spear. In doing some research on those newer cars I finally went down the rabbit hole of YouTube reviews, and that got me thinking about Technicopedia. I originally wrote that site in a text editor using HTML 1.0. It uses nothing more complicated than tables and hyperlinks. My "video" is just crude stop motion animations. I did eventually graduate to CAD pictures of the models, but only using the oldest LDraw tools which are now archaic. I can't help but notice that the site is hopelessly outdated, both in content and appearance. It doesn't hold a candle to the content which is now available on YouTube. Some of these reviewers are really good! The long form video and audio with demonstrations of each function and the whole build process is just another level that Technicopedia doesn't have and can't compete with. The domain renewal for my site recently came up and I found myself wondering if I should keep the static site going for posterity or just let it fade into the sunset, archived by the Wayback Machine. I never put any advertising on the site so it was never monetized like YouTube videos. As an aside, it has been interesting to come back to this forum and look back at some of my old topics and posts. I really posted a lot and was deeply involved in the community back in the day! I heard one of the YouTube reviewers use the term "color vomit", and it made me wonder if anyone remembered that I originally coined that term right here on this forum in my 42000 review back in 2013! Anyway, it's nice to be back looking at Eurobricks again. I have about 100,000 posts to catch up on reading.

Yes, a teeter hinge is a real thing for simple rotors. Robinson helicopters use it and so do the UH-1 and Bell 47. I'm pretty sure that is only for 2-blade rotors which makes the 8412 actually somewhat accurate. My favorite rotor head is the 7-blade, fully articulated head on the CH-53E Super Stallion.

Yes, they are contradictory, that was the point. I can't tell whether the swashplate is real or not. The arrow on the official photo from LEGO makes it look like the whole rotor tilts.

From what I can tell from the helicopter photos, it will indeed have collective pitch (much like the original 852 helicopter in 1977), but what people are calling "cyclic" will really be a tilting head like 8856. I'd love to be proved wrong though. It looks a bit like there might be a real swashplate. Depending on the length of the control horn, they might even compensate for gyroscopic precession! Even then we'd be a long way from a fully articulated rotor without a flap hinge or a drag hinge, but we're starting to get as close as we as is reasonable with LEGO.

I seem to recall another major release having an error in the orders of the gears but I can't remember which one. Was it the Porsche? Then LEGO claimed they did it on purpose to make a bigger difference between gears. It doesn't make a lot of sense to make a book in such a limited quantity unless it was a requirement from Ferrari. They like their products to be limited and therefore demand inflated prices. Just a thought. I actually just want to read the book; I don't necessarily need to own a copy permanently. Hopefully there will be a way for me to borrow one or see a PDF or something.

I didn't get a book. Out of stock at 12:15.

Wow, this brings back memories. I think this one of the first sets of instructions I ever made (and it shows).

Finished. Here's 2019.

Looks like this will work. There are a quite a few position errors from the conversion so I wouldn't use it for close-up mechanical pictures, but it is close enough for overall renders which is all I was looking for now. Thanks! I've only got one file left for 2019 and I'm working on it now.

If know absolutely nothing about Stud.io. If you can export an LDraw file, I can take a look and see if it will work.

I've completed the LDraw models for the 2017 and 2018 sets, and I have a large portion of the 2019 sets done. I don't have the time to do the 42098 car transporter though. Any volunteers?

When you're right, you're right, and you are right. I found an interference hidden in the model that forces the 5.5L axle out half a stud. I fixed it now. That's not what I was referring to, but I'm glad to make the model more accurate. Yeah, the flex axles are always a giant pain. I know LDCad is much better at it, but I never learned that software. If someone wants to improve them, I have no objection. The flex axle along the roof line should actually not be flat. There should be a continuous curve from the front the back, with the center one arched a bit over the flat roof. I could do that with enough time, but I didn't. Last night I went through the long, agonizing process of exporting a parts list from the file and comparing it to the parts list in the back of the manual. This revealed a number of errors that I fixed, revealed one error in the manual, and left over a few errors that are too much trouble to track down. Summary below: Error: Manual shows 26x black 11478 5L liftarm with axle holes, but the actual instructions have a mixture of black and light gray. I'm guessing they made a change to make some parts show up more easily during the build. There are actually 12 black and 14 light gray. Missing: 1x black 32316 5L liftarm Missing: 2x black 32523 3L liftarm Missing: 2x black 2780 friction pin Missing: 1x light gray 32316 5L liftarm Missing: 2x blue 43093 axle pin with friction Missing: 2x red 11214 long axle pin with friction Missing: 2x red 32054 long pin with friction and stop bush Missing: 1x red 3705 4L axle Extra: 2x red 32062 2L axle So that's an overall delta of -11 parts. My Brickstock parts list now shows 3679 parts so even with the extra 11 it is only 3690 which still doesn't match TLG's stated part count of 3696. The file is now to the point that I feel comfortable sharing it. You can download it here. Anyone bored enough to find where those parts are missing earns point redeemable for a free download of the updated file.

Nope, that's not it. Skirts are positioned correctly. Here's an extra view just for fun that shows I can open the hood and doors reasonably well in the model and also lift the spoiler and remove the engine cover.

OK, I checked more closely and there is indeed a single rotational degree of freedom on that panel attachment. I rotated them forward and it looks much better. If I'd had the correct wheel arches in there it would have been much more obvious because those panels won't even fit without rotating them. I've done a new render with the corrected panel positions and also took the opportunity to use the old metallic green from 8466 which looks way more accurate to the real car. Of course, after the render was complete I spotted one more easily visible error in my file. Bonus points to anyone who can find it. Higher res version of the picture here. When I build my physical version, I think I'll be replacing all the visible blue pins with black.

Thanks, I'll check on that. I didn't think they looked quite right, but that's the way they fit according to my file. Maybe I missed something.

Here's the final model. Errata: wrong wheel arches, wrong wheels, wedge panels only symbolic, no printed parts. It was about a week of back breaking labor (my back is actually really sore!). I'll post the file once I have checked it for errors.

Just finished Box 5 which is everything except the wheels, tires, handbag, and plaque. The doors were not as hard as I thought, but a lot of time was spent on the flex axles. I also kludged together a proxy version of the wedge panels for the hood by modifying the file for the straight panels. I just linearly extrapolated the edge points out onto a slope by entering all the points by hand. It looks OK from above. Another little detail I noticed at the last minute is the fact that the center black strip on the roof slopes slightly toward the back. I have that modeled correctly now.

There are LEGO themes other than Technic? The camera has nothing to do with MLCad. The camera is controlled in the rendering software, POV-Ray. This software has no GUI so certainly no hotkey. You have to manually enter the camera parameters in the input file. I usually do my LDRaw to POV-Ray conversion in LDView which also allows you to set camera parameters. Jim, sorry for OT. I'll try to stop talking about CAD and get back to the model.

Box 5 proved to be more than I could do in a day with all those tortuous angles, but I got the front end done. Hopefully I can do the doors tomorrow. Obviously the panels on the hood are wrong, but that's as close as I could get with existing parts.

If ever you want to test your MLCad mettle on an impossible twisted mass of LEGO geometry inspired by Cthulhu's face, this headlight assembly would be it. I don't know if Uwe Wabra has a degree in geometry, but the University of Copenhagen should give him one as an honorary title. Through the magic of exact math I can confirm that there are actually some very slightly stressed parts in this assembly. Given this fact, it's possible that relational CAD software like LDD may not be able to deal with it because it doesn't technically fit. You'd never notice it in real life; I'm sure it will fit just fine. I can also confirm that the digital download of the manual has corrected at least one of the errors that Sariel pointed out in the manual during his review.

Yes, I can use any kind of lens. The pictures I've shown aren't technically orthographic, they just have a very small field of view (1 degree). I chose this intentionally because it makes it easier to interrogate models during the building process to check for errors without distortion. It also makes it easier to overlay steps to check progress. However, I agree that pictures with greater perspective look more "real". Try these. Here is the original picture with 1deg FOV: Here it is with 20deg FOV: And here it is with 40deg FOV: Sure, I can make the file available when I am done. Agreed. For example the 32294 wishbone suspension arm has been used in this model around the tail lights in lime. It has never existed in any other color than black. In order to produce a color parts pack for this model, they would have to produce that part in a new color just for the parts pack. Maintaining a new element ID is very expensive, and that's just one of several parts in this model (rotors, wheel arches, panels, etc) that don't exist in other colors. If all the parts did exist in an alternate color (in current production) then it would indeed be a pretty simple matter to offer a color swap.

Bag 4 was really hard to model. Really, really hard. Errata: new wheel arches not available so old ones substituted. They don't look right and interfere with some flex axles. Door jamb rotors not available so I truncated the existing rotor model. Doesn't look too bad. I'm able to put the spoiler up and down in the model. Here's a lovely preview of the car from the rear which is pretty much done. I'm using the Chiron wheels until the correct wheels are available.

I have no experience messing around inside LDraw part files or creating them from scratch. I'll probably use substitute parts until the new ones are available. Usually Philo comes to my rescue.