Jump to content

Saberwing40k

Eurobricks Counts
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,936

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Saberwing40k

  1. Saberwing40k
    I love any axle with stop. It helps a lot when you need something to not come apart, or an axle to not walk out.
  2. Saberwing40k
    Okay, what kind of parts do you have? And what kind of motors? Does the rover need to have a battery box onboard? Also, this is the smartaft in me talking, but why such low gear ratios? Lego motors are quite powerful, and do not need that much reduction. Also, having worm gears just bleeds power, and I think this would be something you could point out. Finally, I really think you're doing yourself a disservice by asking this. You won't learn as much, and is that not the purpose of your class? To learn the principles of engineering?
  3. Saberwing40k
    Actually, I really nominate 8002. Seriously, it is not easy, and if you do it wrong, it does not work. The really unfortunate part is the rubber bands, they're the kind that degrade. It does have some neat parts, which is why I'm glad I didn't get rid of it.
  4. Saberwing40k
    Thanks for the heads up. Now, what should I make? I'm a little bit disappointed in the choice of contest, but there ain't a whole lot to do. Thing is, how do you define "Motorcycle"? Maybe in 100 years, the line between motorcycle and car is rather blurred.
  5. Saberwing40k
    I nominate 8455, or 8868. So many pneumatic hoses, and they don't quite do what you want. But, that's not really hard, and, in my opinion, if you have trouble assembling sets, you might not be ready for Technic. I have zero trouble no matter the set, but I may be an odd case since I built a UCS Star Wars set when I was like 8. See, Lego sets are designed to be okay to build. And, honestly, with all the simplification of the instructions, and color coding, no adult should have any problem. Now, building a MOC of your own is different, or even building one with instructions, which range in quality from almost official to borderline unuseable.
  6. Saberwing40k
    I'd say build what you want. I don't build for popularity.
  7. Saberwing40k
    All the information we have is that the Porsche is the first of a series, and nothing else. We don't have any sort of timeline or anything besides that. But, given that we have had a certain group of c-err, bootleggers copy the Porsche, Lego might not have wanted to show off another supercar, if it were to happpen this year. I personally think Lego might be waiting until 2018, as they probably would have had a listing, or something. Also, I still have my doubts about PF 2.0. Firstly, the new connectors, and smart motors make zero sense for Technic sets. I don't get the new connector design at all, but I think that kind of stuff is more along the lines of the next Mindstorms stuff, rather than PF. Also, 42070 makes zero sense as a debut set, unless of course it is not actually the flagship, as was rumored some pages back. So, we effectively know nothing, and people are just asking dumb questions.
  8. Saberwing40k
    1.Yes, yes you can. I've had some difficulty getting two SBricks to stay connected, though. 2.I have not tested this. 8 L motors is probably not workable. 3.I think so, but I've never tried this. You may have to consult their forums. If you're using this for your BattleBot, I'd suggest running the L motors through switches, rather than a channel on the SBrick.
  9. Saberwing40k
    In 71042 Silent Mary, we see some recolors of Technic parts. #15461 is now in reddish brown 71042 Silent Mary by The Brothers Brick, on Flickr And some parts in pearl gold: 71042 Silent Mary by The Brothers Brick, on Flickr
  10. Saberwing40k
    I feel like if that were the case, it would happen with sliders too, but it does not. Anyway, even if it were PWM, the joystick center should still give zero, as that's the home position, right? Also, I thought the Servo PWM was sent out differently, over the control wires.
  11. Saberwing40k
    Somewhat oddly, I have this buzzing problem with other motors, not just M motors. Just about the only motor I don't have this issue with is the servo motor. So, maybe we have a problem with the joysticks not actually shutting off power. I dunno, I will be in touch with their support, and will update if anything comes of that.
  12. Saberwing40k
    Well, I recently took the plunge, and purchased a few Sbricks for use in my creations. In order to test the setup, I connected some motors, and used a profile I threw together. The setup I used has 2 SBricks being controlled by my device at the same time, and my problem is that, with one of the SBricks, I have two M motors hooked up to it, and when I activate them, they run just fine, but when I let the joystick return to center, the motors buzz, almost as if the SBrick is not fully shutting them off. I'm not sure if it's a problem with the SBrick, or not, as it is one I tested before, and it had trouble with controlling my other motors. Is there a setting I am not aware of that would fix this? Has anyone else had this issue? Update: I tested it, and it seems to be an issue with the brick, although, in a bizzaro twist, I don't have the problem with sliders, only when those channels are controlled by joysticks.
  13. Saberwing40k
    Are you wanting a sketch if what the Hammerhead could look like as a real concept car, like what Crowkillers did for his Vampire GT? This: If you want something like this, I could do it for you. I'm pretty good at simple vehicle sketches.
  14. Saberwing40k
    Keep at it, I think you could make it work without modified parts, as these videos show. Or, you could employ a better custom solution, with some 3D printed parts: I'd say if you're willing to do custom parts, don't drill out turntables, use something like this instead, and make it really good.
  15. Saberwing40k
    Very nice, this is how the set should have been from the start.
  16. Saberwing40k
    It will come in purple in 42069 later this year, but to be honest, that probably won't help. By the way, what creations are you talking about? I've only ever seen the fenders used in one MOC.
  17. Saberwing40k
    Oh well, just a suggestion.
  18. Saberwing40k
    The wings are a major improvement, but they look a little bit out of place. Maybe try adding the red stripe from the fuselage, and making the back half of the wings black would look better, or maybe try changing some of the fuselage pieces to white would do it, as the transition is rather abrupt from the blue and black fuselage to the white wings. Also, I don't know if a real F-35 has the wings that far back, I think moving the wings 1 or 2 studs forward would look better, make it look more balanced. Just my thoughts, it's already much better, but there is room for improvement.
  19. Saberwing40k
    So, I'm kind of wondering something. How are we supposed to demonstrate the robot if we can't build a training dummy? Would it be okay to have the robot shoot at/charge a cardboard box, or some stacked Lego bricks?
  20. Saberwing40k
    I'm really surprised that this thread hasn't been merged with the general parts discussion. I think that's the purview this falls under.
  21. Saberwing40k
    I don't think so. Lego has released things with lackluster performance before, and if they truly wanted this thing to perform, they would have not hooked up the motor to that complex gearbox. Also, underpowered? I've seen plenty of large creations with only one XL motor used, and few of them seemed to be lacking power. Plus, in comparison to the rest of the model, an M motor and another receiver would be negligible extra weight. And, honestly, if Lego were really worried about weight, they would either have not made it RC, or had two drive motors, like 9398. Maybe we should ask Dokludi. He built a replica, with 6 correct tires, and if anybody would know about the set lacking power, it would be him.
  22. Saberwing40k
    @Andy D Oh, I thought you meant some new part. I'd refer to it as the chassis, or the 8868 homage to avoid confusion. @Bartybum I had some pictures of what I thought the gearbox might look like, at this post: That has some better explanations, but to put it in brief, yes, each function is a product of a combined switch settings. For each motor, one lever controls the switch between driving and the crane functions. Then, the other lever controls which function.
  23. Saberwing40k
    What frame?
  24. Saberwing40k
    Yeah, I don't think so. 8043 does everything you say is innovative, and does it better because it is actually full RC. Having to switch functions manually on an RC model isn't a "revolution" Essentially, that just makes the set a push along model, with all of the cost and complexity disadvantages of an RC set. Also, your statement about the gearboxes makes absolutely zero sense. Yeah, it hasn't been done before, but it would only work with this particular set, or maybe a two motor flagship, which is a rather unlikely thing. So, you make mention of 8043, but completely ignore it, which is kind of junk logic. None of the other RC sets have needed more than four motors, and if 42070 is $290 any way, they could have easily had 3 motors and 6 receivers. What this setup is is a solution to a problem that should not exist. And, it really is no different from a 2 function switch, just doubled up and connected to a common lever. It's like 42000, or 42029. 42070 just seems like a wacky experiment or a half finished prototype, and has no business being a set. You're free to like it, but based on precedent, you can not argue that is innovative. Innovation is a matter of fact, and liking or disliking is a matter of opinion. So, you like it, I don't, and I'm not trying to convince you not to.
  25. Saberwing40k
    What? A Lego Hamster that wasn't built by @Sariel? What is this madness? It's so funny. I like it a lot.
×
×
  • Create New...