Blakbird

$0.10 per part is the average for new LEGO from the factory. If you are ordering a specific list of parts in the aftermarket (Bricklink), you are going to pay much more than this, and don't forget about shipping. If you actually know what parts you need, use software like Brickstore to make a parts list and it will give you the average Bricklink price for all of them as of today. Take that number and double it and it will cover your actual costs and shipping. Of course this only works if you know what parts you need and then you still have to consider the value of your time. In general, no one will pay a reasonable rate for your time for a LEGO model. As an example, I spend an average of about 100 hours making instructions for a Technic supercar. If I value my time at even a nominal rate of $25, I would have to sell $2500 of instructions to simply break even, and then more to make a profit. From this point of view I have never made a profit. It is a service to the community. However, a commission is NOT a service to the community, it is a paid job. Don't undervalue that. A paid job should cover all reasonable expenses and time. A large model should be no less than thousands of dollars or Euros. I don't know what VFracingteam is paid for his large ships, but I can imaging it being tens of thousands for parts and labor. This is not a Technic topic so I am moving it to General where you might get more advice.

There is no requirement that the model be motorized in the first place. If the model is really too small for a battery box, it seems reasonable to use something like the mini ZIP but I am concerned that this opens a Pandora's Box of aftermarket parts. Either 3rd party is allowed or it is not, I don't think we can make an exception for a single part. I suppose the same goes for SBrick. If we are going to allow SBrick then I think we have to allow mini ZIP.

The blue flex axles are quite rare, but you could use pneumatic tubing instead. Other than that, I did not have any major problems finding parts. The 41999 wheels are expensive but not required.

I like new colors too, but I'd like to see them only when the palette of parts for an existing color is reasonably complete. For example, many Technic panels do not yet exist in blue which makes blue MOCing difficult. If either of the recent light blue sets had been regular blue, it would have completed the palette of blue panels. Instead, now I have two kinds of blue which I can't use for some MOCs because of missing parts.

I built this model last weekend in a custom color scheme and really enjoyed it. I am amazed at how well it drives on only one motor for such a heavy model. It is very large and looks fantastic. The Model Team detail and studless smoothness really make it special. Parts: Front two axles are steered with a servo motor: Main drive is an XL motor: An L motor is used to drive the linear actuator used to lift the dump bed. In my model, the actuator clutch slips and will not lift the bed until it is up about 10 degrees. The wires are all nicely hidden and pass up through the Technic frame into the cabin. The wire on my L motor was too short to reach the receiver so I had to add an additional extension wire. Dual wheels on the rear axles. The chassis is incredibly rigid and strong, built with all studless Technic parts. After this point, almost all parts are regular System parts. Completed truck.

The instructions are in the final release phase. I've test built the model last weekend and thought I would offer some photos. The parts: The chassis build: The body build: And a comparison with some other white car MOCs: Larger versions of all photos at my Bricksafe.

For outdoor shots, I like pictures that make scale models look full size. This one by Holger Matthes is one of my favorites.

Good point. That's a very forgettable model so I forgot it!

Luckily for us, the principles of flight have been understood and characterized with equations for a hundred years, so it is easy to predict whether or not something will fly. Wind tunnels are only necessary for optimization.

8285 is the only other time that happened (2006).

I don't think it ever was. It is not out in USA yet.

I don't have any objection to WIP topics as long as they have actual content. What sometimes happens instead is that someone uses a WIP topic to "stake their claim" to an idea. For example, someone posts a WIP topic on Day 1 that says "I am going to build a pneumatic loader" but doesn't actually start building until 4 weeks later. The effect is that other people see that the pneumatic loader idea is already taken and therefore are discouraged from building something similar. To some extent, this is unavoidable and there is nothing wrong with having multiple interpretations of the same subject. I think a reasonable compromise would be to only allow WIP topics that actually have Work In Progress. If you haven't built anything yet, then there is no need for a WIP topic. Nothing is being shared with the community. When you have something to share, then make a WIP topic if you like. Plenty of other users like to wait to post their topic until the last minute so no one can see what they are doing and steal their ideas. To each his own. There is no doubt that many of the voters are only casual Technic fans, and for those voters photo quality may be even more important than the model itself. I don't think there is any way around this. However, anyone with even a cheap cell phone camera anyone can make a reasonable photo with free photo editing software and an hour of effort. It is pretty obvious when someone has put in no effort at all on their photos, and those people are unlikely to win even with an excellent MOC. For example, there is no excuse for blurry photos. Every camera can focus. I'm not sure if it is explicitly listed in the rules, but I don't think there is any prohibition on having a friend help with photos. If someone is really having a hard time with the editing, I'm sure there are users who would be willing to help.

The ratio of LEGO to non-LEGO components is pretty important. If any ratio is allowed, then I already made flying LEGO years ago and I even did it with an unaerodynamic brick separator! This has been discussed in many threads, but it seems like a minimum definition of "flight" would be sustained, controllable motion through the air with lift and propulsion being provided by the vehicle. This means no hanging from wires, no balloons, no ballistic trajectories, no power supplied by a tether from the ground. Even using R/C motors, props, batteries, and servos, I don't think it is possible to make an all LEGO airframe fly. Any of the previous claims of LEGO flight can be refuted using one or more of the above criteria. I wish you good fortune in any case. If nothing else, make sure to take a video of your maiden flight attempt for the education of the community.

I've been doing lots of new photos for Technicopedia lately. I have greatly improved the quality over the old photos even though I am using the same camera. My original setup was just a white bookshelf and use of a large speedlight (flash) attached to my camera. The results were acceptable but there were harsh shadows and the background was not smooth. My new process uses a table covered in white paper with a white fiberboard backdrop and fully manual camera settings. I am shooting at f16 to give me a small aperture and large depth of field. I am using a shutter speed of 1/20th sec. This is slow enough to require a tripod. With these fixed settings, I get consistent results with no need to worry about the light metering on board to camera reacting differently to different colored models. Afterward, I crop the image, adjust the white point, and sharpen the image in Photoshop. The process is more labor intensive than the process of doing nothing that I used before, but I think the results are easily worth it.

I don't think making a structure strong enough is the problem. Even if you somehow manage to get enough thrust, the problem is control. The control surfaces can't possibly have discrete enough control to be usable, and that means even in the event the plane takes off its survival will be short. Don't forget to run the numbers. It is easy to figure out how much thrust you need for a given weight and wing area, and it is easy to figure out how much current you need to get that thrust. Both numbers will be wildly prohibitive by probably two orders of magnitude. Don't forget to size your control surfaces to be large enough at the plane's flight speed and calculate how much motion they need. You'll need to be able to control them to fractions of a degree. Pneumatics are useless because they don't allow absolute positioning, only force. It is perfectly true that anything can "fly" with enough thrust, but I think the amount of thrust and current you will need will be in the hundreds of amps.

That's a copy-paste error. I took those words from a 1995 set. I'll fix it. That should say "studded". I'll fix it. I know, that's what I do. I do level and curve adjustments in Photoshop. The problem is that I adjust the white point of the background it overexposes the white bricks. This means I need to mask the bricks or else I need to manually cut out the background.

Updated pictures now done through 1996. Getting the exposure right on the white models was really difficult.

I can't spot anything obviously wrong from your pictures, but I can say that I've had zero problems with the conveyors. Must be friction somewhere. That sentence pretty much sums up any problems you will encounter with the ball factory. Finding the friction can be quite a challenge. Use process of elimination.

You beat me to it. I was also going to list 8244.

Looks like the fire plane may be the first to have full 3 axis flight controls: aileron, elevator, and rudder. I also see retractable gear inside the floats. I see new 3x11 curved blue panels in the crane.

This is an amazing creation: I love it! How did you make those animations of the functions? They look incredible and make it very easy to understand.

New photos are now complete up through 1992. I am hoping to "catch up" the photos to my writing at 1997 by this weekend. Sometimes it is easy to forget how many models there are, but when you photograph them all one by one it is very clear! In order to take all these new photos, I have been dusting all the models which is quite time consuming. I am using an old toothbrush and soapy water. It works well except for dust inside the holes of Technic beams. A good cleaning is really bringing new life into some of these old models. Sadly, when I get to models like the Williams Racer which have disintegrated stickers, there is nothing I can do to get a photograph of what the model should have looked like.

Cracking stickers is an unfortunately common problem. You won't be able to get new ones from LEGO Customer Service for out of production models, and the aftermarket supply is limited and expensive. Making your own is often the only viable option.

You keep asking this question in different topics. If anyone knew the answer, they would have posted it. You can be sure that when the set is reviewed by someone it will be prominently featured here on the forum so you won't miss it. In general, people do not get advance copies of sets for review, so it won't be reviewed until after it is publicly available. There are occasional exceptions, but they are typically confidential so you won't know about it in advance.

Thanks, that's quite a compliment. I agree that the new photos look almost fake because they are so good. They really are photos though. Click through to the high res version to see the dust!