Erik Leppen

Why? If 10,000 people want something, who are you to say they shouldn't be able to get it? Frankly, TLG isn't interested in the amount of people who don't want something. ;) There're a lot of projects that I find totally uninteresting. But if 10,000 people want it, then why would my opinion matter? As much as I agree with the $1 problem you outline, I think one cannot oblige people to buy anything, unless it would make them buy right away. Which would means that voting costs money. Doing that would change the idea from a voting mechanism, to a mechanism where the required funds are collected before considering production. It'd be safer for TLG. But no one would vote... And it's not what CUUSOO is about. It's about ideas. TLG always wants to have the deciding hand in anything. As long as they represent new, interesting and viable ideas, there's nothing really wrong with a bad model. A good example is the Sandcrawler that just got the 10,000. The model is unrealistically bug - but that's not what it's about. 10,000 people wanted a sandcrawler and told TLG how much they want to pay for a sandcrawler. Based on that data, the design team will design a sandcrawler set. CUUSOO should not require "ability" to propose an idea. Remember - it's still about the idea. Not about the model representing that idea. PS It's good to be opinionated. Without opinionated people there wouldn't be discussion. Agree 100%. A lot of projects aren't viable because they aren't interesting ideas. However - the 10000 vote requirement filters out most of them.

Please note that the purpose of my initial post was not to "use a fellow builder's excellent model as an example of what is a bad idea", but to illustrate what I think is my problem with CUUSOO (topic title). There is no problem with his model. There is a problem with CUUSOO (in my opinion) and the best way to explain myself was by example. And yes, that means I had to use someone's project as an example. One can only improve a system if one is made aware of its problems. So that, and that alone, was my intent. Also, yes, there are probably ideas, but the point is, we don't know what they are. However, Conchas has explained to me that the answer to that is "well, then let's find out". (Also please note that what will happen to a project will also depend on what prices people enter when supporting. They don't ask that just because.)

That's a valid point. Maybe I'm too quick to draw conclusions. This is again a good point you make. We don't know. And now I think of it, maybe that's part of the problem. We cannot predict what will happen because we don't really know how CUUSOO will handle a project that reaches 10,000. What "part" of the project will they base their model of? It is "only" the idea, or is it more than just that? I think it's made more difficult for us than it could have been. This makes me wonder...why did Lego stop the Model Team series? The current Creator series is similar, but less advanced. If there were one idea that would be interesting, it is "bring back Model Team", provided with a few example models from the type you listed.

It's funny how everyone jumps on my Vampire statement without bothering to consider what else I said. And yes. I literally said "it's a great model". I'm agreeing with everyone else on that. However everyone here is talking about "the model being produced as a set". And yes, I'd love to see that as well. I just think it's very probable that that won't happen. Look at Hayabusa and Minecraft. The Minecraft model was rigorously altered. The Hayabusa was completely redesigned as well. Given that, I expect that when this gets 10,000, it will be redesigned as well. So it's not "the model being produced as a set". It's "the idea being considered for viability to create a set out of". That's what I meant when I described the problem I think CUUSOO suffers from - we think in models, not in ideas. And I still think the idea is not new. I didn't talk about building techniques, I talked about the subject matter - which is the same as 8448 and 8070 (in the same way as 8421, 8460 and 8053 all share the same subject matter). I think it's wishful thinking to expect that TLC will use the same building techniques as presented in the example model. They didn't with the previous example models. But I will re-evaluate my opinion based on what will happen with the models currently in review, and admit mistake if need be.

Some interesting replies here. But I think the problems with CUUSOO are elsewhere. The whole idea about CUUSOO is to gather ideas and see which ideas are popular. The focus here is ideas. However I have the idea that almost everyone here is voting on models. However CUUSOO is about ideas, not about models. A vote on a project should be a vote for the idea behind the project, not the way it is executed by a particular builder. For example. The sandcrawler presented here is huge and not viable as a set because it's just way too big. However, the idea behind the project is "an UCS sandcrawler". That is an idea that sounds interesting, hasn't been done and is possible. So I uspport that idea. On the other hand, the Vampire is a great model. However it does not present a new idea. It's just a car, like 8070 or 8448. It has no novel interesting idea that hasn't been done before. So I think there is no point voting on it. When that gets 10,000, what will happen is that Lego consides producing a supercar. But they have already done that, the result was 8070. So it's an idea that's already done. Then why vote? Also another problem is that models have owners, and that owners get 1%. What it does is create competition. And what does not happen, and what should happen, is collaboration. Take the Lego store example. Quite a few people in this very topic have noted that the Lego shop model dubbed "box", is accurate but ugly, and many here would be able to build a better Lego store model. However, none of us can actually improve the project by adding a new model representing the same idea. All that is possible is creating a new Project, which means starting from 0 votes again, with a project that represents the same idea. This is counter-productive. I would conclude that the CUUSOO (business) model is flawed. What should happen is that peole can submit an idea, represented by a model, and then lose ownership over the idea. The idea now belongs to CUUSOO and anyone can add other models to the project that resemble the same idea. That way, AFOLs can support each other, instead of having to compete against each other. In the end this will produce better projects (ideas) where one project can have multiple models submitted by multiple users. Moderators on CUUSOO have to make sure that models added to a project represent the same idea. This can be done by moderators because moderators know what TLG actually wants to achieve with CUUSOO (i.e. how fine-tuned or coarse an idea has to be). Because with this model, projects do not have owners, the 1% royalty has to go as well. I'd consider that a good thing :)

Anything that walks would be great, really. There are walking excavators, for example. Or an AT-AT-like quadruped. Or a biped. Or a Tachikoma. Or a fantasy contraption. Anything goes, really, because walking mechanisms are interesting by itself. Anything organic would be cool as well. They've done a T-Rex before. As far as vehicles goes, all I want is a mobile folding crane. That hasn't been done before.

What happens if you insert the pin in an inline axle joiner, put an axle in the other end, creating a lever, and then bend it? (I.e. the liftarm lies flat and you pull the axle down). But I don't have the newer steering liftarms so I don't know if they are any different from the old ones.

Sorry for bumping the thread again, but during the last few weeks I have tried some stuff with LPub and I have to say that all the possibilities of the program are quite amazing! Whoever made that possible have done a great job at that for sure. Also it's actually pretty easy to use as well. The hard (or rather, tedious) part is getting everything right in MLCAD. It's interesting how instructions get 60% to 70% shorter from just combining multiple steps into one and using callout. Also removing the PLIs from every substep helps creating cleaner instructions. I did find a few bugs and weird glitches though. I'm curious whether others run into the same problems. LSynth flex axles don't render and its parts show as huge empty spaces in the PLI. But maybe I used LSynth wrong though. There doesn't seem to be a way to remove the PLI from all steps in one callout (not that I want, but it's a bug nonetheless). Sometimes, callouts forget their positions and next time I open up the program they are all over the place. Sometimes, when I change the scale of an assembly and when it asks "Change only this step?" I choose Yes. Yet sometimes, contents of callouts are also scaled (also on entirely different pages). There seems to be no way to change the scale of an assembly in a callout. I can open up the scale dialog, but when I change the value and press OK it just does nothing. The assembled callouts show a rotated assembly, but most of the time the rotation is random and completely wrong. An assembled callout only shows parts of the submodel in question, not submodels of the submodel. When I move the assembly in a single-step page by dragging it, and the page has a callout, everything ends up in a completely different place then where I put it. The callout window is not expanded to make sure the "x2" indication falls completely within its borders. Sorry for wall of text, but expect some instructions soon

The old 16t gear doesn't rub the beams if it slides away in a situation like this: The new one does. That's a small advantage of the old version. However I never needed such a situation. But I think the new ones simply look better (and are easier to slide over axles). I have not found a diffeence in the amount of friction they have. There have been (small, non-functional) modifications. The newest old-style ones have a small ridge on the ends of the center part. As far as I know, the 40t gear has remained truely unchanged since inception.

A long time ago I was being stupid when I crafted this combination: + (and no, the bar was not in the axle hole). It didn't take very long before I realised that those two parts will probably be together for life... One from an official set that I've cursed: (the bar and horn are the problem) Nice parts usage, but almost inseparable (set 7905). Actually I think it's unacceptable that official sets contain such constructions.

It's funny, but I thought that too when looking at 9390 and 8065. It's probably because small models use more half-width beams, which have many axle holes, whil larger models use full-width beams, which have mainly pin holes.

That's something I didn't know! I found the option, tried it and it seems to be the missing piece of the puzzle. Thanks for that! By the way, getting the PNG images, I tackled the "editableness" problem, but of course I still needed a PDF. So I looked for a "png to pdf converter" and I found this: PDFArea Image to PDF Converter Free. It looks to be free with unlimited usage time. So anyone else looking for this, here it is :) Sorry, didn't know a CAD section existed... Edit: @Dluders, thanks for the link, but the submodels weren't the problem I was having. Thanks anyway

This looks like a very nice and complex set with a lot going on in terms of functions, and a jungle of levers and moving beams at the bottom (judging by the instructions). It's good to see a proper helicopter set again. The color combination is interesting, but my problem with multi-color color schemes like these is that they just don't work on the alternative models, which usually turn out to be a jumbled mess (8258 is a notable exception). Also I like the appearance of some rare parts like the mini LAs and the 36 tooth gear.

First impressions? It's, again, one of those models with 98% black, gray and red and *counts* as much as ten lime parts (yep). Same problem as the recent orange quad bike and most recent lime models. For some reason TLG seems to deliberately keep those colors rare. The conclusion is that 98% of the parts are already in my collection, so as a parts pack it adds next to nothing to anyone already having a decent collection. As far as the set goes, the tractor looks very bland and uninspired, though I like the "lock" they put on the implement at the back. The buggy has an interesting way of replicating an "engine" and a nice looking driver's cabin, but for the rest it doesn't really have a lot of features. And to be honest, I really don't see what's so exciting about a tractor, and a buggy with no suspension. But maybe that's just me.

After seeing all those wonderful instructions by everybody, I can't believe all those people use "just" LPub for this. So I was wondering, what do you people use to edit your PDFs after LPub has done its job? Things like, adding notes, swapping around pages, adding a title page, adding some photos to explain things more clearly, etc. I'm asking because I recently rediscovered LPub and now I'd like to make instructions, and I'm not 100% satisfied by what LPub produces. So, what do you use to create and finalize PDF instructions, besides LPub (and MLCAD/LDView)?

One can definitely have too many Technic pins. I never use up mine, so yeah, if I had 1/3 as many pins as what I have now I'd have no shortage. And it takes up space I could better use for something else. So yeah...too many pins and axles. Together they form about 1/2 of the contents of Technic sets (example, Set 8110, 2039 parts of which 985 pins and axles (source). I consider that a bad thing. For me it's a deterrent to buying sets.

Question: is the axle hole of the servo motor hollow all the way through? Or are they two separate axle holes at either end? I.e. can one put a long axle through or does one need two axles, one at either end?

Man, this is problematic. I had sort of decided that I wouldn't be getting this set, for budgetary reasons. But now I see this review, it seems too cool to let go by.... Maybe I should just get the motors and all orange and white parts, and use my own collection for the more generic parts. But if I do that I might already be halfway this set's price...

This is a really wonderful MOC, you did a splendid job on this! It looks familiar from the game, which is a good thing. But it just looks magnificent!

(image is link) If we help you look for something, and you manage to find it yourself, it'd be nice in return if you'd post here how you found it and where others could find it. :) What's interesting to note by the way is that this version cannot hold a worm gear, but the new version can.

(emphasis mine) Are you serious? When I and a few friends started playing this game, already after a few minutes we concluded "this is too complicated" and put it away in favor of the much simpler and more intuitive (and above all, much more fun) Minotaurus and Shave a Sheep games. The build looks nice and it looks like a nice parts pack as well...but as a game? Not so much, in my experience.

This was one of those sets I always wanted (mostly because of the green though) but never got. Nowadays I'm not very interested anymore because of the old dark gray it uses, and besides the green there's not very much in terms of interesting parts. But I still think this set is in some way special. I think a lot of people hate the futuristic look, but I think it has a certain charm (same as with 8462) and I like the design of the cockpit and seats with headrests. Thanks for the pictures!

Thanks a lot for the review. I already wanted the set but now I want it even more! :D Anyhow, there is a little error here: Both links are the same. The first one is correct, the second one should be: Booklet 2

A lot will depend on what people filled out in the "what would you pay for such a model" input field. If loads of people voted 50 dollars, then the building will be small. If the majority said 150 dollars, then it'll probably be a modular building sized model. I really hope it will be the latter. It's about time something really nice and big comes out of this Cuusoo thing. All it has produced up to now is two Japanese sets and a "Micro world"! Anyhow. I agree with the people who say that if this doesn't pass the review, then we can just as well give up on Cuusoo. TLC is practically forced to make something of this, if they want to keep the trust people are putting in the platform.

I think it's a pity that the 40t gear and the 36t bevel gear are used so little. The 36t gear is currently the only way to achieve a large reduction over an angle, without using the worm gear. And 36 : 12 happens to be a nice 3 : 1 ratio. The 40t gear is nice for large reductions, has a factor 5 and is one of the few gears that fits the worm gear in the current system. The additional axle holes are useful to connect the gear to beams more rigidly. I've used that more than once: worm gear to 40t gear, central axle hole as pivot points, other two axle holes used to connect a liftarm to the gear. It's a very strong system.