Erik Leppen

I think we should think really small. A set like 42022 would just fit, I think. It's about 35 x 20 x 12 (guessed, not measured) including wheels. I think one should think almost as small as the Mini contest. Maybe 300, 400 parts max. I know I can fit a 700 part model in a 10000cs box (I tried), but that was quite compact and it will be hard to fit two models with the same parts in such a box. I'm waiting for the set reviews for 1H2016 for inspiration. Be sure to check out small sets for ideas. I think it will either be something without wheels, or picking the right wheels will be very important.

It's an interesting copmetitiont theme. The problem: I have no inspiration. Not even for an A model, let alone for two models using (almost) the same parts. I'm thinking in the "crane" corner of models, or in the "supercar" corner, but without any good ideas so far. One thing I have thought about is color usage. The more colors you use for the A model, the harder it will be to create a good B model. So keep an eye out for good multicolor sets where both models show good color usage. This is hard to do well. People with less ambition could go for a single color model (plus black/gray). I'm still on the fence about what I will do with color, because I like mixing and matching them, but it does make things harder for the B model. By the way, Jim, could you please spell "cubic" with a "c" at the end as the English language always does? :) Anyhow, here's some examples of sizes that are allowed. Feel free to use 21 x 21 x 21 = 9261 25 x 20 x 20 = 10000 30 x 20 x 15 = 9000 36 x 20 x 13 = 9360 40 x 16 x 15 = 9600 50 x 14 x 14 = 9800 60 x 15 x 11 = 9900

I think it's good that you ask the question. However, it's hard to answer. Thing is, your crane is actually pretty cool. But there were so many more great entries than we could vote fore, so that's why I think you ended with not very many votes. You also might have gotten few votes because it's only the trailer, and the carrier didn't make it in time. Also, the very messy WIP pictures may leave a bad first impression? What I like about your crane is the originality, and the mix between studded and studless. I also like the X-shaped outriggers. As for what to improve, there's actually only one thing that I don't really like and that's how the mounting point of the pneumatic cylinders is almost vertically below the mounting point of the boom, which looks kind of weird. With this setup, the mechanical advantage of the cylinders decreases as the boom raises. Which makes perfect sense for a Lego build, but isn't what happens in real life cranes. For the rest, maybe the quite wide outriggers might be a problem. You see that the actual frame is very thin, because the outriggers take away 4 studs of width on each side. This is due to the pneumatics, but maybe you could make them 3 wide in future versions.

Why do I see black 3L axles? Or what pieces are used in the roof conencted to the white transmission-slider parts? It can't be the new black 3L pins, nor the dark-gray 3L pins.

I don't think any competition should take as long as 6 months. If the deadline is known at the start, then everyone can adjust their scale of building to the given timeframe. This went fine with the cranes, and some huge models have been built in two months, I don't see why two medium-sized models couln't be build in, say, 10 weeks. If a competition is held that takes 6 months, then either the people not interested in the theme have to wait, or there will be a second, hence competing, competition, which is kind of weird. 10 weeks is plenty of time to build 2 models, especially given the size limit. Just to get a sense of scale, I tried to build something that would fit in the box, and in as little as about 12 hours last weekend I got pretty far, and it looks to be around 800 parts for a model that MLCad reports to be about 36x19x11, which is 7524 cubic studs. Of course, doing a good model will take longer, and doing a B model will take even longer, but if 12 hours is a simple model (plus its MLCad counterpart), say 20 hours is a good model, and 40 hours is the B model, which is 60 hours total, which would be 6 hours per week. 10 hours if you build more slowly :)

Pretty cool, really. Not sure about some of the panels near the front wheel arches, but all in all, very nice. I particularly like the blue details. I would have picked another color for the seats though, so they stand out more. Also, the black rims make the wheels look like a large black mass. I would pick a ligther color (although light gray isn't ideal either), or use those silver rim parts. Oh, if only TLG made blue rims...

If I see invalid votes I report them. Is that the right action to take?

This would mean that you couldn't change the A-model if the B-model requires certain parts. So I'd rather see a single deadline for the whole set.

Will there be a rule disallowing WIP topics in the first one-or-two weeks? Also, will finally something be done about WIP topics not showing any actual LEGO builds? I'd say, if you open a topic, show us something you actually built.

Length * width * height = cubic studs. E.g. if your model is 30 studs long 15 studs wide 18 studs high Then it's 30 x 15 x 18 = 8100 studs3. I like it. It doesn't allow overly huge models, but it does allow compact models, and it allows for all kinds of proportions.

5: 10 2: 6 9: 4 1: 3 6: 2 14: 1

If you don't know what to do with it now, sell it, wait until you do (which might be years from now), then use the money to buy the kit that's available then (whether it's third-party or not). That way, when you finally have ideas, you're not sitting there with old tech. Who knows something comes about where Lego motors can be controlled using a more mainstream programming language. That said, I'm a bit biased because I don't see what I would want to do with a 300 euro set with only 600 pieces (and I'm a software dev as well).

Did you ask why they had chosen these? I mean, if I have no idea, I ask until I have. ;) The uneven intervals. Why 11 and 12, which are hard to tell apart? Why the gap around 9? Why not 7/9/12, which would make more sense given they are more equally spread so more chance a part around the required length is a available (if you need "about 10")? Why 19? That seems like an odd choice. Why not 8/10/12/16/20? Or 7/9/11/15/19 for studless times. Or 7/10/13/16/19 for equal intervals so that between 6L and 20L you always have a choice that is at most 1.5L off? Or why not somewhat exponential as in 7/9/12/16/21, so that always there's an option that less than about 20% off? Lots of questions I would have asked the technical development if I would have the opportunity. Were all lengths chosen at once, or were some lengths added later from new insights? The latter would make more sense given the weird numbers. Are all lengths even still in use? Something I'm wondering right now...

LOL @ Gnac :D Also, for future reference, the available soft axle lengths (including the ends) are 7 studs = 56 mm 11 studs = 88 mm 12 studs = 96 mm 14 studs = 112 mm 16 studs = 128 mm 19 studs = 152 mm Does anyone know why these weird lengths by the way? (I thought, let's post a little bit more useful question :P) It seems kind of random.

As for modularity, I often try to build things up modularly, but in the end it usually becomes one big intertwined spaghetti of beams and axles without any sense of modules, because that's usually the only way I can get everything to work, be rigid, and look decent. I toyed with this for my [TC7] Enforcer, where the weaponry was a separate module, but there was a beam and an axle from another part that lined up so well that it looked foolish not to connect the two, even though it means losing the modularity. Or with mobile cranes, when I try to build the two outrigger units identicaly, but they always end up being different, because they're in different circumstances, e.g. the front one needs a drive axle to pass through or has a structural role where the rear one doesn't. I don't know about expert perspective, but in my perspective it's often good to do the hard bits first. I'm planning to build a car that has a separate gearbox similar to 8070 to operate the doors via a motor, so I'm inclined to make that section fit in first, before I can add the axles with suspension. Also, when I build cars I often add the seats relatively early in the build, because it helps me get the proportions better. But I'm sure that this is very different for other people. I find that for structural needs, the 5x11 panels are sometimes really useful, but to be honest I rarely use panels for structural needs. I mostly use them because they're a nice way to make rounded shapes.

When they are the best fit to what I want :) I really think it's that simple :P

After all these years, we still haven't seen this: And I know this question has been asked many times on various forums, because I always answer this :)

Thanks for all the replies, folks! :D It's now officially entered, with video. Check the entry post :) Haha, thanks! Even the color scheme would fit :D Nothing special, alas. It's running directly from a winch on the trolley.

12. Folding Crane Functions Steering on all axles Four simultaneous outriggers that actually lift the model by locking over center Superstructure can be rotated manually Boom lifts via cable, driven by external motor Boom extends via cable, driven by external motor Boom first jib unfolds together with extension Boom second jib section attaches manually Trolly with hook is moved manually Hook is raised and lowered via knob on trolley Images Video Discussion topic Folding crane

After a lot more searching, I found Lightworks, which seems to do what I want. It requires to register an account, but the free version has just enough export options with no watermarks to work. I tried Jahshaka, but it seems to not work on my PC (clicking many buttons, just nothing happens). I also tried Movavi, but the free version also has a watermark. I also tried Avidemux, but it doesn't allow stitching together fragments. Anyhow, the video seems to be done, so, off to write the entry post (after dinner) :)

What programs do you people use to edit videos? I'm asking, because VideoPad (what I used in the past) wants me to pay for their full version, Windows Movie Maker doesn't install, Ezvid can't rotate and flip videos (and my tablet somehow recorded them upside-down), Wondershare has a huge watermark, and I can't seem to find a simple free program that does the few things I want. So I was wondering, what do people use for their videos, particularly for contest entries? My wishes are very simple: stitch fragments together from different source files rotate and flip fragments mute sound Surely there's a free program around that can do these fairly simple things?

It's picture time! It's really 99.5% done now. Only the hook unit has to be remade (more compact), so it can actually be carried for transport. I have to say though that operating the thing is quite a challenge. The strings tend to get tangled up, but I don't think this can be prevented. Also, I used an external motor to drive the functions. I just put some axles and small beams connected to an M motor, so that it grabs into the knob wheels. Everything could be done manually, but that would take ages. Putting any kind of motor anywhere in the model itself is totally infeasible. Also, when fully extended, it's rather... wobbly. Guess that's also inevitable, given how everything rests on a single turntable, and the carrier has hardly any space to make it rigid enough. So I don't dare lifting anything with it. Fortunately that's not the point of the competition :) That fact it works at all is quite a feat :D But doing a neat video will be quite a challenge :)

Can you show what you have tried yourself?

I have to say this looks pretty great. It really looks like a heavy-duty truck. Also, I don't know if such a truck actually exist, but it looks very credible. I could see something like this running around on our highways. I also like how you used most of the competition's time and seem to be done well on time. So nice planning there :) There are a few things I like a bit less, but these are minor concerns. The wheels look a bit small in comparison. But this might be because it's a truck-based crane, not a mobile crane. The second thing is that the outriggers look a bit "messy" with all the connectors, while the rest of the truck is very clean with beams and panels. But this is probably mainly because the rest of the truck looks so nice. Lastly I'm not fully convinced by the stepped stripe on the cabin, but I realize the only way around this would be either a change in design, or use studded bricks which would be out of style. I might have chosen the same approach as you, I don't know. I do really like the front wheel arches using a bit of studded bricks. The whole coloring is also very nice, I like the gray and red color scheme with the white stripes and black details (windscreen, grille), it works really well.

I definitely agree with this :) All those different views is why we have such a variety of models. It's good to have variety. This inspires people. It's good to have people take different approaches when they build MOCs. It's just that this particular model doesn't resonate with what I personally like most about LEGO Technic. That's all :) Also, size is rarely a challenge by itself. Most often, size is a challenge combined with something else (be it functionality, rigidity, strength, low weight, strange shape). One of the main reasons I don't like this crane is that I have this feeling that it's possible to build the same crane in the same scale with way fewer parts without sacrificing strength (by relying more on the rigidity of the studded bricks/plates). There seems to be a lot of redundancy. It just doesn't really seem carefully thought-out yet. I would have found it way more interesting if it looked a bit more optimized, or used an intricate truss design. But I understand time is short, so this will probably not happen within the deadline :) I have the same thing with real-life mechanisms for example, like buildings or bridges. I'm not impressed by a strong support beam. I'm impressed by a thin but strong support beam. See what I mean? I'm impressed by things that look like the result of a difficult design process (no matter the design criteria). That's why I'm not impressed by size alone. I'm impressed when size is achieved despite some other difficulty.