Erik Leppen

Thanks! Yes, that was actually one of the first challenges I recognized. If you scroll back in the topic, you see in my second update I already noted this and started looking for solutions. If there's one thing this competition brings, it's mechanisms which are completely new. No steering or suspension or function switchboxes this time, but completely novel engineering solutions. 31 minutes ago, RohanBeckett said: Thanks, and yes, it is indeed fun to operate! I had it with me on a meeting last Sunday and there were some people who asked to try the thing themselves. I'm actually quite proud of how everything worked out. I was surprised by the strength of the motors. Although I do notice that with all three motors unning, the L motor has trouble inverting the bench, because the center of gravity is not aligned with the rotation axis. The only minor problem with the operation is trying to align it nicely when the ride ends. It rotates quite fast, so getting it to "end" on an approximately vertical and upright position is a challenge (you notice this in the video). I toyed with the idea of a slow/fast gearbox, but this added too much friction and would have limited the output power too much to work. Better keep it simple. :)

I have finished the ride and added it to the Entry topic. So it's now officially done! :D As you can see, I added the operator's panel at the front, using color coding for the various controls. Blue = platforms Red = gates/restraints Orange = battery on/off Medium azure = left and right swingarm (XL mptors) Lime = bench rotation (L motor) Here are some additional pictures not in the entry: I think it looks pretty impressive from a low standpoint The black structure around the battery box has three pairs of 6x8x10 triangles for rigidity. The obligatory underside picture. Note how the axles from the medium azure controls go all the awy to the back, where the switches are. The control for the platforms has moved to the left, to make room for the third switch (lime control). All the wires are just long enough to fit.

5. Excalibur Excalibur is a Top Spin ride, inspired by Excalibur at Walibi Holland, but with independent arms. Functions: Motorized rotation of left swingarm (left swingarm has a hinge to accomodate free movement of all three motorized functions) Motorized rotation of right swingarm (independent) Motorized rotation of the bench along its axis Manual raising and lowering of the movable floor, entrance and exit Manual opening and closing of the gates and restraints (coupled if the movable floor is raised) All 5 functions, and the battery switch, are opareted from the front operator panel 100.00% pure Lego. No SBricks, rubber bands etc. See also the discussion topic:

I checked the File -> LDraw Dir... in LDView and it already points to the same folder... I added the parts folder once more to Extra Dirs, and in LPub3D I changed the scale of the bill of materials contents to force re-rendering of all parts. Still no effect. Also, if LDView can't access the parts, it can't render them in the assembly images, right? So, it sounded like a really good idea, but I'm afraid it doesn't solve the problem...

My first thought: what a waste. Indeed, as @brunojj1 already noticed, why haven't all the thousands of hours gone into staying into the core business: developing good construction kits for customers to assemble. But not only that, why spend so much molding capacity on this? They could have produced a thousand more sets with the same plastic. My second thought: I find it hard to imagine they just created all those new recolors just for this one model. But I have been baffled by company decisions before, so I actually don't count on any of these parts seeing the day of light in a set, but I surely hope so! Trans-clear and trans-red Technic beams, I even see clear pins. And of course all that stuff in dark-azure. If all those recolors are developed just for this model, then first, why even write about that in the accompanying text, they don't do that for Legoland or Lego House models either, and second, that would be even more of a waste. Personally, I would value it more if the base set was better. It does clarify 42083's sky-high price point though.

I have a weird problem with LPub3D. I use MLCad to create models, and LPub3D to generate instructions for them. To make the model copmlete, I needed some part that are not yet official. One example is the plate 1 x 3 with 2 studs (the double jumper plate). I downloaded these as separate .dat files and put these in the MLCad parts folder manually. Bricklink says the part's id is 34103, and indeed there is a matching 34103.dat in the folder C:\Users\Public\Documents\LDraw\parts. If I then open LPub3D, go to Configuration -> Preferences, then the LDraw root directory is indeed set to C:\Users\Public\Documents\LDraw. Which means it should have direct access to that 34103.dat file. However, when I create the instructions, then the part is not showing in the part list image for the step. Interestingly, the part is visible perfectly fine in the assembly images. Why does it not show up in the part list image? Also, this is not specific to this one part. I have noticed the same for other new parts. As far as I have found, these are plate 2 x 2 with 2 studs on edge plate 2 x 2 without corner tile 2 x 2 facet all of which are parts I downloaded manually. They work fine in MLCad itself. What's going on?

Why? I'd rather see it kept open, but I'd like to know your reasons. Because the moderation team surely sees things we as mere mortals don't. To give you my reason: I think a community benefits if it has the ability to discuss itself. As most of the dicussion seems very civil, I think it's a good sign if members can exchange ideas about how we post. (But again, I don't see what you removed). I say if we can exchange Lego building advice, then why not advice-giving advice? :) (Also, a thing about closed topics is that they always have a "last word", and that last word always goes unchallenged because noone can post anymore, and it somehow feels to me as if that last word is then automatically "the conclusion" or the "consensus", which of course isn't true.)

I think the hard stops serve as aligners, to prevent pins from sticking out 0.05 stud at some end and being in the way of a nearby liftarm or gear or other object. I understand the desire for stop-less pins, but I don't really have problems with the stops. I'm also afraid that parts that can be pushed in and only pushed out by axles, will genreate lots of constructions that are impossible to take apart again, becuase something is blocking the axle supposed to push out the pin that holds everything together. The fact that pins can't be pushed all the way in a build, also means they are always removable.

Personally, it would seem rather ludicrous to me if the mere suggestion to say something positive would be at the heart of the problem. In short: if your style of commenting feels OK to you, keep it. But let me elaborate. It's not that I force anything on onyone, I am just confident it's genuinely better. For many reasons: Firstly, by also posting the things you like, you just come of as a more balanced and reasonable person. I think suggestions for improvement may be taken more seriously if you also point out the things you like. Secondly, I just think it's common sense. If people want to improve, I think it helps tremendously if they know what they're already doing right. If someone only receives critique (even if constructive) they might start thinking they are a complete failure, Lego-wise, and might just as well move to another hobby, or that they don't feel welcome at EB and leave. Thirdly, why wouldn't you take a bit of time to find something positive? Again, I don't say you must do that (yes, I know I used the word "should", but I don't mean "absolute requirement"), I just think, if you take the time to post anyway, why not take the time to write a more balanced post? Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Fourthly, everyone does things right and it can't hurt to point that out. Even if the effect is near-zero, it hurts absolutely noone. You can be done in three words, e.g. "nice color scheme", or whatever. Please note that lessons on how to give feedback are part of many trainings, including the teacher's education, and that the idea of pointing out the good things is an early part of such lessons. So it's not just a made-up thing by me. It works. Lastly I really want to point out that "saying something positive" is NOT "great model, keep bricking". Absolutely not. If you don't like the model as a whole, saying "great model" is a lie and I think you should always be honest. So, saying great model to a model that you don't find great, is a no-go for me. So I'm with you there. Saying something positive could be about anything: the challenge one sets on himself, the originality, the choice of subject matter, the build style, the number of motors, the colors, the size, the functions, the fact it's a C-model, the photos, the amount of explanatory text, the backstory of how one got into the hobby, the way someone replies to feedback, etc. etc. There's always *something* that crossed your minde between seeing something and deciding to react. Just write that something. You don't have to praise the model as a whole. (If you don't like the model as a whole, you certainly shouldn't ) Again, my posts should be seen as suggestion, not law. Please, keep doing what you think is best. If you're confident your posts are reasonable and constructive, then please, keep doing your own thing. We all benefit from all the various standpoints, including standpoints on how to post. (And to be honest, I didn't at all have you in mind when I wrote my post. I haven't noticed anything particular about any of your recent posts)

edit: this has been settled now. Thanks Ivan_M :) I think most, and actually all posts I see here are very mature. We all understand we're not perfect and we all have a proverbial slip of the tongue once in a while. I am sure guilty of this too. In this last discussion too, I have certainly played a part in the whole thing escalating. I don't want that to happen, it somehow happens. I sometimes feel the need to defend someone, and then I don't realize that in defending someone I might attack someone else. And indeed, as stated by others, I',m not a native speaker and this is a text-only medium, so things are easily undrestood by any of us and can take a bad route quickly, without anyone asking for this. As long as we can stay constructive, I think we're all fine. I think you're completely correct here. I also feel that many people are sometimes too lenient on models could really use some improvement or more thought. So I really think many of us could be more critical. While discussing the flaws is needed, I also think it's only the first step. The next step, that also needs to be made, is making suggestions to improve. If you play a tune on a piano (assume for the moment you can't play piano, if you do, read "trumpet"), and someone notes "the timing is all off and the keys are all wrong", does this contain any new info to you? No, you already knew this. And will you become a better piano player? No, of course not. The key is that not only do you know what the flaws are, you have to have some concrete way to overcome them. Some explicit thing that you can go and do next, in order to improve. In the piano example that could be "try only the right hand first" or "try playing it very slow first" or "write a number by each note indicating which finger to use". So instead of saying "the proportions are off" you can start by stating the proportions are off, and then suggesting a way to prevent this mistake the next time. For example, to use a grid and calculate the sizes in studs, or to overlay a photo of your model with a photo of the reference. Those kinds of suggestions is what inexperienced builders need. If they want to be as good as we are (And I'm sure we want them to be as good as we are), they need to know the tricks we know and use the tools we use. The point is not they have flaws. They know they have flaws. The point is that they know how to fix them, and how they can start fixing them now. Which means, they need a plan they can execute. I think that someone wise enough to discuss a flaw, should also be wise enough to suggest a plan. (This makes me think about a nice proverb I once heard, that goes as follows (not an exact quote): fairytales aren't told to tell children that monsters exist. Children know that monsters exist. Fairytales are told to tell children that monsters can be killed.) Edit: thirdly, there is no model that has only flaws. Every model has good sides. If you want to tell people what to change, I think you should also tell people what to keep.

I think the best answer to this is: Depends. I think everyone sets their own goals, and any goals are fine. Personally, I tend to prioritize functions if I'm building something new, such as my theme park ride, and start focusing slightly more on looks wnen I'm building something I've done before several times, such as a car or a crane. I also focus more on functions if the functions are original, and tend to focus a bit more on looks when the functions are more straightforward. Or I focus more on functions when I build something that is rare on the forums, and focus more on looks when building something more common. I do try to find a compromise between functions and looks though, so that both are at least decent. I'm not good enough a builder to make both great ;) I do like to bring something new with every model though, even if it's just a color scheme, or a single interesting function, or a new scale/size, etc. But in the end, I think functions are what define Technic, so functions should be the main attraction. And for them, I prefer effectivity over realism. For me, if it works and is original, I care little whether it works the same way it would in reality.

That's not what I experienced after giving criticism. I have seen this on every place on the internet. It's not "rotten", it's human nature. It's well-known that humans react much stronger to negative things than to positive things. If all is well, it's not noticed. I thing are strange or uncanny, our brain notices this in a split-second. It's perfectly normal. It may not be how we would ideally like it, but there's very little that can be done against something that's normal human nature. Interestingly, have you noticed that you are exactly doing what you condemn here, by replying on a remark on gate's crane because you disagreed? I haven't seen buttloads of +1s from you lately ;) 1 hour ago, Sariel said: Are you now implying gate doesn't have a working pair of eyes? Apparently, clearly, to him, his crane represents the real one in a sufficient way - otherwise he would've changed or renamed it, wouldn't he? What you seem to be forgetting is that what's clear to you isn't clear to everyone. It's easy to forget how difficult Lego building is if you have years of experience. Please don't use phrases like "everyone with a working pair of eyes sees this", because it's insulting to those who don't. My rule in teaching is: if someone doesn't understand something, never say it's easy. Not the same. gate didn't say it looks like a LTM. He said it works like a LTM (implicitly). In fact he states literally that it wasn't his goal to replicate the looks exactly. If you say it's yellow when it's red, then you're not only wrong, but implying that color is important; meaning feedback on color is warranted. Yet, nobody crizitized my Excalibur TC14 theme park ride for being yellow where the reference picture was red, so people clearly understand which parts are modeled and which parts are changed. And I gave my model the real name too! Why did I not get a comment from you about my model being the wrong color? You didn't say "the real thing looks different". you said "literally every single proportion is off". That's a whole other tone of voice, isn't it? In fact, the entire thing that makes me make such a point about this is your tone of voice. Especialy in your post a few minutes back. You're not being the nice person I know you as. Why?

Exactly, @Ngoc Nguyen. And how much difference one tolerates, differs for every person. Therefore, what constitues a model or not a model, is in the eye of the beholder. It's subjective. Therefore, each of us can say what we think is a model or not. But none of us can say how others should be seeing things.

Opinion. Not fact. Explanation here:

I see I should have posted here, instead of in the crane topic. I believe it's more about "let's try to exercise". What I mean is, let's focus on the process. The process is exercising. Being fitter is a likely outcome of that process. Anyone doing Lego building, or anything for that matter, should enjoy the process. And who decides what is "ridiculous" and what isn't? There's ALWAYS a difference between a Lego model and the thing it represents. That's why it's called a "model". It represents a certain aspect of something, while leaving out other aspects. To me, that's the definition of "model". @gate's crane represents certains aspects of a Liebherr LTM1060 crane, namely its functions, and is therefore a Lego creatoin that models the real crane's functions. It's therefore a model. It's not a model of the looks of a LTM1060. And it may not be a model you like, or even a way of modeling you like, but it is a model. If you build a helicopter and I say it's bad because it doesn't fly, would that be fair? No, of course not. But the reason it's not fair, is because you chose to not represent the "flying" behavior of helicopters, so any feedback on that is moot. Your focus was on other aspects. @gate's focus was on the functions, so let's feed back on the functions. It's like seeing a pencil drawing and saying it's too flat and lacks color ;)

I feel what you're getting at, but the opposite of praise is not bashing. Maybe you should copmare your posts here to my reply on page 1. I think what you're doing is destructive criticism. What parts of your post are actually usable by the OP to improve his (next) model? I think what we should see here, and what most of us actually recognize, is the skill level of the builder. To me, @gate is obviously not such an experienced builder as you and me and many others here are. His model shows this. There are beginner's mistakes. But let's be honest: we all made these. And I know you think, well, it's the honest non-flattering feedback we get on those models from which we learn and can make our next models better. But, I can tell you, when I made these beginner mistakes, there was no internet to get feedback from. It was basically my parents who just liked me having this hobby, and my brother "testing " my models. Weak spots became obvious within seconds, I tell you . Yes, @gate's crane is far from perfect, and it's not a LTM1060. I fully agree with you. But does it deserve the bashing you give it, given the skill level of the builder? No. I assume (I always assume) the builder did his best. Stating it's all messed up and keeping repeating that, isn't helping, even if it's true. Also, he reacts in a normal nice way to feedback and replies (except yours. I wonder why), and I think that deserves a bit more praise. He seems to want to learn. For gate, building this crane is a learning experience. Also, this model gives insight in his skill level. When he posts his next model, we can compare and see if there are improvements. If not, then we can criticize. If so, then there can be praise for learning and improving, alongside constructive feedback. My contention is: give feedback on the process, not (just) the output. To give you a case in point, maybe you should check out my post on page 1, which points out some problems, and compare it to your posts which basically says "the proportions are all wrong". Which of the two, do you think, is of most use by gate? Edit: or, stated differently: I say you can point out obvious flaws, and still be nice. Your posts point out the obvious flaws, but aren't very nice. /edit I think one advice I would give to gate, from seeing this topic, would be: try doing something smaller and simpler next time.

One of the best looking Technic supercars I know about. I also like the very clean underside. Personally I prefer if the seats are a different color from the body, but the shapes of this are perfect. And then all the functions you managed to pack inside. Especially the doors are wonderful.

Wonderful model! Very iconic car in its most recognizable color scheme. Medium blue is perfect for this, and this shows how well it can go together with orange. Again, I can take a model off my to-build list ;) I'm personally not a fan of motorized supercar models, but that's purely personal. I don't care about the app-controller, but the performance using all those buggy motors seems great. There's two little things I don't like though. One is that I have the idea that the rear end is a tad too large. Second is the tiny front wheels. I think using the same wheels in the front as you used in the back would have been better. It would have made the front of the car slightly larger, which would make the thing more balanced. The Tumbler tyres in the rear are a brilliant choice for this car.

Ever since the discussion about 42082's inflated part count it was a matter of time before someone made a crane that had all the functions with fewer parts. Yours has more functions, and pretty inventive ones at that. I wonder how you did the steering modes on a model with suspension. The Legov ersion has much better detailing, especially around the outriggers your model is kinda rough. I do like how it's slightly less "bulbous", although I'/m not a fan of the light-gray stuff on the sides, between the wheels. Especially that 5x7 frame looks a bit ugly there. Also, I tink you don't own the set (or don't wish to sacrifice it)? Otherwise I would expect you to re-use at least the large slewing ring. That's the one place where I think the official set beats your model, functionally. The steering has a lot of play, the difference between the modes is hard to see on your video. I remember it to work better on 42054. It may not be solvable though, as you added suspension too. I do wonder how you made this work. Do you have a picture of the underside, or othe rpictures showing how the functions of the chassis work together? What you lost in functionality, are the all-motorized outriggers. Yours have an additional manual step, which I think TLC wanted to avoid in their model. Your version of the outriggers look much weaker as well, but they are closer to how they work in real cranes. The custom lifting cylinder looks a bit ugly, but what worries me more is that it seems to bend quite a lot, because of the gray 3x5 L beams that you used to connect it to the boom. I would have preferred the way the set did it, by having a liftarm stick out the bottom of the boom, and the hinge point being lower, so that it's in line with the cylinder.

What strikes me most is how well you hid all the tubing! There's a lot going on, but at first sight all the pneumatics are almost invisible. Also I agree with @BrickbyBrickTechnic. The model being yellow and black and not having a cabin, the pneumatics are a perfect fit for this set, also because their size and range are similar to those of LAs. And that counterweight thing is the ideal spot for a battery box. Thinking of it, it kinda baffles me why this set wasn't pneumatic in the first place. It feels so natural.

The colored seats are fine, but the fencing on the base is really ugly, to be honest. It looks thrown together with little thought. And if you don't have system bricks, use Technic for that. I used the red and yellow axles to good effect, for example. I'd advise to try bringing more uniformity in the color scheme. I used the same three colors, but I used each color for a different "function" (platforms vs gates vs railings). Also, I think you can brighten things up by replacing a lot of black stuff with another, brighter, color. The rotating frame that holds the chain could be red or orange or something. It's not a super large model, so I'm sure you can get some red beams there instead of all the black it has now. I think the best way to reduce the "blackness" is not to add color, but to remove black and put color in its place. (But watch out not to create a colored mess.)

42055 is really quite the set, I notice. Tons of C models are made, of all different kinds. I say bonus points for that feat alone. Yes, I thought the same as @BrickbyBrickTechnic: maybe adding the third branch will improve things, because then everything is balanced again. For the rest, you're off to a good start and I hope you can find the pieces in that one set for 9 seats.

Cool, thanks! :)

Where did you get this from? I find it really hard to believe, so I'd like to hear an official word on this from the judges. @Jim or @Milan, if I show my entry on a meeting next Sunday, would that disqualify my entry? And if so, why? All I could find in the rules about this, is the following: I would say that everyone can see that my entry is new, given the extensive WIP photos, and I'd say that a week before the deadline doesn't exactly fall within the word "previously". Given the spirit of the rule, rather than the letter, I am fairly sure I'm safe.

Yeah, I know extension cables exist, but I'd rather not order even more expensive parts. Also, I can imagine myself using those switches more often in the future, but extension cords are less likely, because I usually don't build super big. Anyhow, I received the switch parts I bricklinked (I deliberately ordered them from a shop from my own country), so I have all the parts I need now. Two of the three switches have been installed (at the back, out of the way), and everything (except the third switch) is routed to a knob at the front. Currently the front has 5 knobs, and 1 missing. open/close entrance and restraint raise/lower movable floor battery on/off switch for the left swingarm switch for the right swingarm switch for the bench rotation (missing) The control for the entrance is at the center. I moved the control for the moveable floor to the secondary side, to free up space on the primary side to put a switch for the final motor. That will probably be added tomorrow, bringing the total number of controls to 6, and then I will probably color-code the controls so it's easier to know what does what. Also, I notice that this model uses a lot of long axles. Many more than my usual models. Fortunately I don't have a shortage yet. Sorry, no photos this time, but the changes aren't very visual anyway.