Ralph_S

Read what I wrote again carefully before jumping to conclusions. You seem to think that since I disagree with your statement about the roles being predominantly culturally determined, I must therefore think that biology determines it. If so, you've got it completely wrong. You also seem to think that we can simply chose to believe in one point of view or another, based on what we like or what we don't like. That too is completely wrong. The question of what determines human behaviour is actually a scientific one and most of the science that I am aware of indicates that human behaviour is the result of a combination of what we are taught and our biology. The reason why you can't separate the two is because they go hand in hand. There may be certain elements of human behaviour where one or the other dominates, but when it comes to the question at the start of this thread the only sensible answer is that the jury is still out. Your point of view "it's mainly cultural" can also be grounds for discrimination BTW. Some conservative religious people believe that homosexuality, for instance, is a person's choice or a function of how they were raised and has nothing whatsoever to do with biology. Thank you for understanding my point and for your excellent example. Cheers, Ralph

I don't agree with that at all. It's far more complicated than that. Stating that behaviour is completely learned is as ridiculous as stating that it is entirely down to our biology because it is next to impossible to separate the two. The issue is called the nature vs. nurture debate. TLG aims its products mainly at boys and this may explain some of the difference. If it were simply a matter of making different sets it would appear as though they are missing out on a large market. They have tried various different product lines aimed more at girls (Clickits, Belville and whatnot) but they never really seemed to last very long or become very big. Do they simply suck at marketing to girls or are girls in general less interested in a construction toy (for whatever reason)? Cheers, Ralph

Very neat. Opting for slightly larger wheels was a good idea. I can't quite put my finger on the reason why, but I like the blue one the best. I like the look of all of them and am glad that some of my cars were the inspiration. Five-wide rules ;-) Cheers, Ralph

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of it, but now I've joined it. Cheers, Ralph

I'm not going to discuss the whole 'what is minifig scale' thing again, since we already discussed it in the thread on version 1 of your truck and we already pretty much agreed. Wheel sizes on 6-7 wide vehicles indeed ar a bit of an issue. It's not just the smaller scale that I like better on this than on version 1. I think that you have also succeeded in improving the proportions. This one simply looks more like a real truck. I've often seen vehicles with this size wheels with wheel wells that were four studs across. Using straightforward studs-up building that really is unavoidable. Instead you've used some SNOT work to make the wheel wells a bit smaller and this looks a lot better I have one question though: don't the front wheels rub against the mudguards? Cheers, Ralph

It looks a bit too short, but the length the model can have is obviously limited by the wheelbase of the train motor you've used, so there's no easy way of doing anything about that. Overall it's very nice. Nice shape, great detail and it's a great subject for a MOC. Cheers, Ralph

Nice work. It looks like a Crown Vic and you've managed to pack a lot of really neat detail into this relatively small car. The no smoking tile has to be my favourite bit. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks. I am glad you like them. They were fun to build and I'm sure I'll build more minifig scale vehicles, whatever that scale may be The awkward proportions of minifigures compared to real people are part of the reason why years ago I simply stopped using minifigures. I look at my Lego building as a form of model building, and you don't really need figures with models. However, in recent years I've been taking my models to public events and became involved in some collaborative city building and I've begun to realize that figures really add a lot of character to a display, even if it is just a line of cars parked on a table. So, for my larger vehicles I've started building brick-built figures (somewhat similar to those in Legoland parks) and have been building a lot of minifig stuff -even if it does mean working around their odd proportions. I look forward to seeing what other things you'll be building. Cheers, Ralph

I have to agree with most of the other comments. It's a nice fire engine, I love all the equipment stored in it and it is a great way to get out of your dark ages. I have a thing for fire engines, and while I most often build American ones, it's good to see the off European one as well. I personally also think it's rather a bit too wide to be considered minifig scale. The problem is that minifigs are much too wide for how tall they are, so if you build a truck that accommodate three figures sitting side-by side you'll end up with a truck that looks much to big with the figures standing next to it. You'll obviously have to compromise, and which choice you make will probably depend on what you'll want to do with it. My minifig scale fire engines are built to be part of LEGO city layouts with buildings, other cars, cyclists and pedestrians around them. In that case a fairly small scale works well, so my minifig scale fire engines are 7 studs wide. They look reasonable with the figures standing next to it, but it has the obvious disadvantage that I can't get many figures into the cab. If you build a stand-alone MOC or you want to add a lot of play value, a bigger vehicle is fine, I suppose. Cheers, Ralph

Very nice. I often get questions whether I have instructions for the things I built, but I've never gone to the trouble of making any. It's wonderful that people such as James Mathis do put effort into this sort of thing and that there actually are people who are inspired by them Cheers, Ralph

Thanks. I'm afraid I never make instructions for any of my MOCs. I spend to much time behind a computer as is and much rather spend my time building with LEGO building with actual LEGO rather than virtual bricks. Sorry. Ralph

I think it is important to take into account that what might be convenient for you may not always be convenient for the people you might want to see your pictures. That's the reason why I'm still on brickshelf, because I know that flickr is awkward to use for people who don't have an account, which means they aren't as likely to see my pictures. If you only put your pictures on MOCpages, the majority of people who'll get to see them are kids and teenagers. Of course, I was once a kid and a teenager, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily interested in their opinion Cheers, Ralph

There are pros and cons to all of them. I still use brickshelf, am an enthusiastic user of flickr and used to be on MOCpages until recently. The interface on brickshelf is a bit clunky and old-fashioned, indeed, and there is no facility to exchange comments or questions, but it's still used by a lot of people and is LEGO-only and free. The biggest drawback that I see is that its continued existence seems a bit doubtful. The plug was almost pulled two years ago and I am unaware of anything that could prevent it from happening now. Flickr is brilliant. I did go for the pro-account and haven't regretted it for a minute. There are very few limitations, it is intercative, with the option to add comments and notes, there are very active groups dedicated to LEGO (such as LUGnuts and the Flickr Lego Military group), many excellent builders are active on it and you can customise it such that you really only get to see the stuff you like. That means that even though it is a general photo-sharing website, if you don't want to see non-LEGO pictures, you really don't have to. If somebody pisses you off, you can block them and you'll never have to see them again. The only drawbacks that I see is that it's not very friendly for people who don't have an account and their free accounts are a bit too limited for my tastes. I ran into one of them in the first week of having an account and decided to upgrade there and then. MOCPages is LEGO only, which is a plus I suppose. It too is interactive and is free. It's also been overhauled considerably and the various new features such as groups and the option to choose favourite builders means that if you set it up right, you don't have too look at the loads of rubbish that are uploaded every day. That's one of its biggest problems. It's full of children and obnoxious teenagers. It isn't particularly friendly to use for people who don't have an account, because they have few means to separate the good from the bad. Although there are some very good builders on it, they're a small minority and most of them are on flickr too. It's also a breeding ground for plagiarism. Put your pictures on there and you'll see copies by people pretending that the pictures are theirs appearing all over the place. Since it doesn't offer anything that I can't get on flickr, I decided to leave about two months ago. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks guys. I did enjoy building this one and even though it has pretty much wiped out my collection of tan plate, I'm already making plans for some more armour. I wouldn't mind doing an M2 Bradley, for instance. The figures are similar to the ones in LEGOLand, albeit a bit smaller. Sometime last year there was a hotrod contest here on eurobricks that also involved building a driver. At first I thought this was a bad idea, but I built a driver anyway and found that I really enjoyed building it and that whenever I took any of my models to public displays (with the Brickish association) people always responded very positively to the figures. They add a little life to a display and give you some idea of the size of the models. Cheers, Ralph

Thank you. I've never been actively trying to push the outside of the envelope when it comes to building techniques. I just try to apply the simplest solution to getting a particular shape. Thanks. There are some great builders out there who might enter the competition and to even stand a chance at winning I felt I really had to make an effort. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks for the kind comments. If I'd have known people would like it so much, I'd have built a tank sooner I did. It really helps with getting the proportions right. It's not the most brilliant picture, but I've taken one with the top of the turret removed and you can see how I attached the sides. It's nothing very complicated. The panels have a 1x2 plate with a handle attached built into them. The handle attaches to two 1x1 tiles with a clip and they in turn are attached to a plate and some headlight bricks. The only thing that was slightly tricky here was positioning everything such that the panel sits at the right angle without an obvious gap where it meets the plates that form the top of the turret. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks. I keep telling people that the larger size compared to many other people's tanks does work in my favour. I have great admiration for people who manage to build decent tanks about half the size of this one. The treads aren't set in place and can move. They move quite well on anything except a very hard smooth surface. Carpet is ideal. The tiles seem to have quite a bit of clutch on the technic treads, although the odd one will pop off now and then. The only problem with the treads is that the road wheels don't really want to turn. I used wheel 30.4 x 20 for the road wheels and unfortunately those have four ridges on their outer surface that tend to get stuck. Ideally I would have used older wheels of the same diameter, but I found that I only have 10 of those in grey (and most of them are on the other side of the English channel). They would also have the drawback that I would not have been able to push the the tan steering wheels I put in the middle of the roadwheels as far inward. Cheers, Ralph

The airplanes tend to be quite a bit more complicated. Not to brag, but I reckon if you can build a decent plane, tanks shouldn't pose too many problems. I'm glad you like the figures. brick-built figures can look pretty awkward, but I felt it looked better with a crew. It looks a bit more lively that way. That is a bit of a different genre indeed. However, I've taken a look at some images of that tank and it looks as though you're doing a pretty good job. It has a far more complicated shape than the Abrams, actually. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks everyone. I am glad all of you like it. They are standard technic tread with 1x4 tiles stuck to every one in two. Beyond that it's just a matter of making sure that their sides don't touch anything. You've thought about me? That's very flattering. Compared to the planes I often build this tank was actually relatively straightforward, since it consists mainly of flat surfaces. What sort of tank are you building? Thanks. The turret can rotate over 360 degrees and the gun can be traversed. The tracks work, albeit not perfectly. The tank can drive, but the rims I used for the road wheels aren't completely smooth, which means they get stuck every once in a while. I've taken a picture with the side-skirts removed where you can see the whole thing. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks guys. The quality of the entries in last year's contest was so good that I figured that I'd have to pull out all the stops. Part of the reason why it is as detailed as it is is also because I chose to build on a fairly large scale. Obviously adding details is made easier by that. Cheers, Ralph

May 30th is the deadline for this year's build competition on the lego military build group. Lately I've been building a lot of cars, but this competition was reason to do a bit more military building again. One of the categories was modern armour, and for this I built a large scale model of an M1A1 Abrams tank. It's been at least ten years since I last built a tank and it was nice to be able to build one with various new parts that came out since and in a colour that I didn't have before. I'm happy with the result and hope you'll like it too. (pictures are links) more pictures on flickr Cheers, Ralph

Nice truck, although the configuration is a bit unusual (but then again, so is a truck load of Tusken raiders). It looks like a semi-truck/ articulated lorry but with an axle missing. What would be normal is to have a tractor with a rear axle and a trailer, like this. I don't think I've ever seen a truck quite like yours. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks. It did take quite a while. I had a six-day break at Easter and spent most of my waking hours on five of those days building this model. I then had it sitting unfinished on my desk for a few weeks before I made the last decals and finally took pictures. That would be pretty neat, but I fear that my models are much more fragile than anything you could ever sell to anybody and then there's the issue that they don't make old dark grey any more... Many planes from that era had a bombardier/navigator sit in the nose who could look outside through the transparent nosecone and identify landmarks (roads, rivers, railway lines, cities) to help keep the plane on course. They had very few electronic means of navigating at the time. On bombers in particular it would also be the position for an optical bombsight (the famous Norden bombsight). It was a combination of a telescope and a mechanical computer. The bombardier could aim the telescope at a target on the ground. The computer would keep it aimed at the target, would fly the plane (through the plane's autopilot) and would drop the bombs at the correct moment to hit the target. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks Guss. I had a lot of trouble choosing what plane to build, because they all have their difficulties, but I kept coming back to a B-26 because the real plane has such a lovely streamlined shape. I'm glad you like it. Thank you. The real 'Slow Starter' was dark olive over unpainted metal. Old dark grey and light blueish grey seemed to be the colours LEGO makes/ made that come the closest to that (short of using pearlescent grey or silver grey). I chose to model this particular aircraft because I liked the nose-art and the contrast between the red highlights and the greyness of the rest of the plane. Cheers, Ralph