Erik Leppen

Wow, you really set the bar quite high with such a small scale. I'm very curious how you will fit everything in, let alone connect the drivetrains for the turret and the gun. Or will the gun motor be inside the turret? It looks like that's the only place where you still have space. I do hope the gun/turret don't block the RC input from reaching the receivers. If you had an SBrick you could put it in the back behind the battery box :P

LeocornoProductions, Please let me explain why I am cricital. Feedback/criticism is crucial to learning. You try your best on something (anything), show it to others, others judge it critically and provide their knowledge, applied to the thing shown, point out how you could make it better, and you then have learned something new. You then try to apply the new knowledge and receive new feedback again. That's how all learning works. So by providing feedback, I help people learn. (Not only the receiver, but everyone who reads along can see other people's thoughts, which could help them in some way). This means however that the receiver has to be able to handle feedback. This is a skill in itself that has to be learned as well. But you cannot learn how to handle feedback in a useful way if you never actually receive feedback. So if receiving feedback were to be a skill gmshades had not yet acquired, I'm helping him with that as well. (However, looking at gmshades's reply, he knows perfectly fine how to take feedback.) Also, I expect that when people post their stuff on an internet forum, they want feedback. I assume they want to improve (who doesn't?) and welcome all tips and ideas they can get. That's at least my incentive when I post a MOC. If you only want praise, you should make that clear in your post. Otherwise, expect feedback, because everyone has different talents and, as you say yourself, nothing is perfect, so everything can be improved. I'm not an expert builder by the way. It's very flattering you see me as one, so thanks for that! But many people here show stuff I can only wish I could build. So if I post here, I want to have them take a good look at my model and give me tips. (Actually this happened with the Model Team competition, which helped me improve my model by miles. So I have experienced the importance of feedback once more there, so why wouldn't I return the favor?) By the way, you said the OP built his model very quickly, and this is a talent by itself. If you read my post again, you'll see I say the same thing. Now, given the OP has built a pretty nice model in a week, for a two-month contest, you could do two things. You could leave it be, but you could also use the remaining time to try to make your model as good as you can get it with all the help you can get. OP can build a good model in a week, so if he continues at this pace, then he could blow us all out of the water. One more thing. I'm also joining this contest. This means gmshades is a competitor. I could also have decided to not bother helping him, so as to improve my own chances in the contest. So why did I help him? Simple: because I care about helping people much much more than I care about winning a contest. Oh, and of course, thanks gmshades and Milan :)

The motor setup in the first images is scarily similar to my first idea. I had exactly the same motor setup. (Fortunately for you I scrapped that idea.) Anyhow, I like your model, it looks pretty nice. I like the double rear tyres. I also like the orange lights at the sides, a nice little detail that really improves the look. Also, very nice how you managed to add the V6 engine in there as well. I have a few suggestions though. First of all, you're done within a week, and there's a lot of time left. I'd use the time to try to optimize your model wherever possible. Play-test it, and see if there's anything that could use work, and build an updated model. If you have the parts, you can leave your current model in-tact and build your second model parallel so you always have your reference. 1. The frame seems to sag at the front. You might want to add some bracing there. If you have 5x7 frame liftarms use those; they are perfect for bracing. 2. I wouldn't do the studded roof, it "breaks style" with the rest which is all studless. 3. The side panels are "staggered". Maybe you could add something to make it really sloped rather then "stepped". Don't "break style" by adding studded details on a studless model though. 4. The cabin is rather "square". Maybe you could add panels to make it more curved, and to let the grille "sink into" the front a bit instead of sticking out 5. Don't forget the licence plate :) 6. It's (still) reeeaally black... (even with the yellow). Maybe you can add some details in another color, or use the same trick as 8285 does and use another color for the chassis, e.g. light gray. Or if you look at your reference, some details are silver, like the front bumper frame or the frame that holds the large orange lights. You could have those in light gray. That would add some variety to the color scheme. Good luck in the contest anyway. You have set the tone for others, I think, which is great. :D

I just might have thought of a cool idea. Or, better said, I have thought of a cool idea, and I hope I can get it to work. And it "ordinarily" has four functions. No gearboxes. Now I hope that the motors have enough power (I don't have L or servo motors, so it's M or XL). Also strengthening the drivetrains properly will be a challenge, because the first MLCAD experiment showed things have to fit in a tight space. I think I'll open my topic soon :)

aol000xw: I think Andy is right. If prices are unreasonable (a word you used yourself), then don't buy it. If you buy it, then either you have reasoned yourself into buying it (which implies the prices are not unreasonable), or you have bought it without reasoning (which, to me, sounds like the basic idea behind an addiction). It's strong language by Andy (and by me), but it's all implied by the very strong word "unreasonable". Lego is expensive? Sure. Lego is unreasonably expensive? No, not at all. But the only way to have a "vote" that TLC "hears" is with your wallet. Don't agree on their pricing strategy? Don't give them your money! If you complain about them, yet buy their stuff, there is no reason at all for TLC to change prices, so you won't accomplish what you want. TLC is, after all, a commercial company.

Why don't you use gearbox, like me? Gearbox was already accounted for in my counting. I wanted 3 + 4 + shifter, where 8043 has 3 + 3 + shifter. Technically, I could add a second gearbox with the 3 motors remaining (2 + 2 + shifter requires 3 motors) but that would become impossible to build and to control. You guys are confusing yourselves. Just make a model that you can comfortably play with using 8043's controller.

Why not "Just make a model that fits nicely with the same way of operation of 42030 or 8043". Is that so difficult to interpret? We can endlessly debate about the details, but let's adhere to the spirit of this contest, right? To be honest, I am having an idea, but it requires a manual function (or five controls). So that means currently I can't do it. And I don't even really care if it's "allowed" - it's not in the spirit of the contest to have a manual function. If you build something that's not in spirit, you won't get as many votes. It looks like the spirit is to build a remote-controlled model that has four controls. So, I say: let's just build a remote-controlled model that has four controls.

It's in the original post Jeroen. Please read before you write. ;) Same goes for Tommy's LED question by the way. It was answered before you asked.

By the way, just to be sure: the model is not supposed to have manual functions, correct?

Interesting competition. I'm usually not into PF myself, but I might go for it. And to join the discussion, yes I think the model should have four independent controls. After all, that's how many controls the RC will have. How many motors every control uses is up to the designer, but the model should use the four controls for four different things, in my opinion. This could be interesting. This SBrick is controllable via smartphone, right? Anyhow, I'm probably going to join. Two months is quite some time :)

I agree with the comments on the B model of the arctic truck - it looks as good as the A-model, and the satellite is quite ingenious. I'm not sold on the 42039 B-model to be honest. The headlights are cool, but as a whole the model looks like any other B-model to me. Also indeed, even the main model itself is kind of mediocre. I think it would be better if it were smaller and denser, with the same functions except the ability to motorize it. Still I hope they'll use the bright green in future sets. Because as a parts pack it might be interesting having both green and white.

Exactly (Blakbird). With 40 parts you could also add a cool winch. And a winch is much more easily "advertisable" to the target market. This model has a cylinder engine and a winch! When discussing decisions around sets, always keep in mind whom sets are actually designed for: children.

I love the wheels in that Enzo. Not necessarily for their design, but because they allow the steering joint to be inside the wheel, so the wheel arch can be smaller even for steered wheels. This is more realistic, and will give a bit better steering. (By the way, another advantage of those tyres is that they are quite hard and curved, which mean the contact surface is very small, which makes steering a lot smoother). By the way, it's a cheat but you can fit the current supercar tyres (I mean those used in e.g. 42039) on these wheels. It doesn't fit very well, but it works, and I use it sometimes.

I think my vote goes to Creator, as I think it's the closest to Lego as it is meant to be. Relatively generic pieces and multiple models per set to show that one can indeed build everything. Also there is some detail, but not so much that nothing is left to the imagination anymore. But Architecture is another really nice one, that shows people you can replicate all kinds of real-life architecture with the Lego system.

Well, in fact, I have a car built up right now that is still waiting to be photographed. Not really a supercar (no gearbox) but it counts nonetheless. The main reason to have it rotated 90 degrees is because there wa snot enough room in the longitudinal direction. (And I think simple rear wheel drive with no gearbox made it possible because the drivetrain doesn't really become that much more complex). Will post photos once I have them...

37 of all 46 entries are wheeled vehicles (If you include the three aircraft, which also have small wheels, it's 40 out of 46). So we have All entries: 80% wheeled Top ten: 70% wheeled So if there's any conclusion it's that wheeled vehicles are less likely to end up as top ten, not more likely as you claim. That's a great idea. After all, the entry topic was already deeply hidden, let alone the topics for previous contests. :)

Studless is at least 10 years old, with a steady stream of sets every year. We might have come to the time where there are more studless sets than there have been studded sets. Studless has evolved a lot since 2004, and it shows :) Bigger sets are probably sipmly more "awesome", more "wow" and more complex. Small sets may be very good, but are more targeted to younger builders (and might indeed be not worthy for AFOLs). It's no surprise to me that AFOLs pick the most complex sets with the most intriguing mechanisms. But to mention a few mid-sized sets: I think 8069 is a very good set. And I have always liked 8071 and 8296 too, even though I don't own them.

If I were to keep 5 sets and nothing else, I'd pick 5 sets whose parts are compatible. I'm a MOCer, not a collector, so I'd probably pick 5 studless sets with the same color scheme and varied parts - that would give me the most options for MOCing. Probably something like 8421, 8043, 8265, 8258, 8275. It's a wholly different question to "what are the 5 best sets I own" :)

True, there are some seriously good B-models in the studded era. I do think that in the studless era, in general, the quality of B-models has gone down a bit.

I think that depends on who you ask. What's worthy for me, could be mediocre to someone else. I'm all in it for the parts. So I'll probably be buying the cargo plane 42025 as my next set. (As a 1300-part set I consider it a flagship even though 42030 came out in the same year). As far as parts goes, 8285, 8258, 8421 were all great deals, and 42009 might be the best deal of them all. But my main criterion I use for "worthiness" is their "Technicity" - the complexity and ingenuity of the functions, and whether a set looks like it was actually a challenge to design. That's my judgement ruler, really. I think 8070 is a great set, even though I don't own it. It looks great, and it has interesting fucntions (many disagree, but most people disagree on the idea, not its execution). 8258 is absolutely a marvel and might get my vote for best flagship so far, and 8043 was really worthy as well. On the contrary, I think 8285 is a poor set - it offers almost nothing in the aspect of interesting functionality. There's no interesting dilemmas to be tackled in the design of that set, because there's simply so much room for everything. Compare that to 8043, where a real challenge has been overcome designing that model and fitting everything in. When building 8043, you can see it was hard to design. 8285 looks easy to design. No surprises, no compromises. That's also why I think 42008 is a really great set, for example. The more compact, the better. It still surprises me that 42008 has as many as 1300 pieces. That's almost as many as 8880! My last criterion is a good alternative model. That's another place where 42025 shines, IMO. 8275 had no real B-model 8421 had no real B-model 8110 had no real B-model 42009's B model is meh (I'd much rather have seen a single vehicle) 8285's B-model is meh (it was mostly just beams) I can't remember a great flagship that had a great B-model, except 8868 (that said, I don't remember all B-models), and in the studless era 8070B looks really nice.

A deserved top three, all fantastic models. Congratulations! Some results are quite surprising, didn't expect those 4th and 5th places especially. And great work by all who joined - was a great contest :)

And even if it does (look ugly) - I mean we all remember how they motorized 9395... Good point. You don't really need a tiny motor unless you also have a tiny battery box. Unless you would be buliding a studless space shuttle, of course :D No. Oh wait... :P What question? :P

Marketing, marketing. XL sounds cooler. Hence M and XL, rather than S and L. (not counting the current L, which came later)

This is an interesting note. If I look in my "long technic bricks" box I notice most of them by far are 1x14. It seems that a few Creator cars from recent years, and the VW van, used connected 1x14 beams for the frame, rather than 1x16s. (Interestingly, the Mini 10242 uses 1x12s) Also the large City tower crane 7905 uses 1x14s everywhere. What could be a reason for that choice? The 1x16s I have all seem to be from the studded era, sixteen yellow ones from 8421 and a few singular ones from some other Technic sets.

42009 has a thousand parts more and is cheaper. So, decide for yourself how badly you want the electric components, the nice wheels, the Volvo licence and a single-purpose bucket, and whether they're worth more to you than 42009 which is galaxies more complex and intricate. Now I own neither, but going through the instructions of 42030, it seems to be a whole lot of straightforward beam-stacking. It makes me wonder why the studless system is even used for a non-technic build. I simply don't see the appeal, given I already have 8265 (which is great by the way, and costed less than half).