Erik Leppen

I would have expected 4-wheel steering on this. Unless anything happens beneath the turntable, that looks like just extending one axle and making the build even more symmetric...

I agree. I must say, I like how it looks, and I couldn't care less how "the real one" looks, so I didn't even check. It looks like a helicopter, which for me is good enough, as long as it has cool functions, and if it's also a good parts pack then I might pick one up. (200 bucks is steep though.) That said though, the fact we're given photos means all we even have is how it looks. If they want us to comment on the functions, then show us a video of the functions working. And if they want us to discuss the parts, then show us the parts. It's really not hard. TLC not doing this, only shows their priorities. Apparently, they want us to know how it looks before all else. Well, AFOLs always deliver ;) Or has a designer video been released already? Because if so, then shame on us for not sharing and discussing it.

What I would be most afraid of in this design is the sliding action of the selectors that need to engage the gear. I think just the tiniest friction on the gear axle, and those sliding elements might jam, because the action is quite far from the sliding axle. I have no idea if it's realistic, but it might work better if the axle with the "wave selectors" is lowered so that it acts directly on the part of the sliding piece that engages the gear, instead of 3 studs up there. Also I dont know if a 12t is possible (if you're designing new elements anyway, maybe have it so that 12t is possible. Then the biggest gear can be a bit smaller, which allows axles to move slightly closer together. Also, the axle with the gaers now has 9 studs length without any support. I would expect that distance to allow enough bending to cause trouble. Although sections can just be moved away from each other by a stud, so that's a solved issue. But I have no experience with this - just thinking along, for what it's worth :)

That's a really nice way of showing all entries, and getting people to notice the competition and vote! Nice! Can a link to the topic be added to the frontpage post? Or is it deliberately left out? (Or did I just miss it?) Regarding the entries: if these were all sets, I would probably buy a few. :D It will be hard to pick just a top-6, let alone put that in some order :)

Looks like a fun model, and looks like it has quite a few functions in a small space. Love the idea with the hidden wheel, even if it's a bit unsighty when looked at from the side. But it emphasizes what Technic is about for me: cool functions. Also if I understand it correctly, it means that 2 functions need to go through the turntable. Are you using the 8258 solution with the idle gears? Probably, as I don't know any other solution.

Getting stiffness in a flat chassis will be a challenge. Especially if you're not going through the center. Studless builds are very prone to torsion, so that will be hard. Have you considered creating a box using those new 19x3 frames? I could imagine those could help a bit. Also, have you considered studded bricks? It's rather easy to get longitudinal stiffness just by using brick-plate-plate-brick over the entire length. Such a beam would really get in the way of everything else, but I wanted to mention it anyway, because I used this technique once or twice.

Nice. It probably helps that the marbles are smooth (glass). Would this also be possible with GBC balls? Because, then you could expand this to be a GBC module. Also, what I really like about the video is that it shows how it's actually built up. It emphasizes the process, rather than just the result. More people should do this.

Why are people disliking the yellow on the helicopter? It's the part I like the most of all :D And I even think it looks realistic here. It's not overdone. But if you all don't like it, I'm eagerly awaiting those shiny new parts on bricklink (assuming it's neon yellow) :D

This looks to be a really great model. I wouldn't have expected someone to build a road roller, so that's a nice original entry there :) I like how there's a lot of interesting non-standard part usage and pieces at weird angles. I think the angled sides are interesting panel usage, and I like how you used the big white defender wheel arch piece, without it looking out of place. The angled small wheel arches are nice too. I also like the usage of the brickheadz glasses and the hexagonal glass pieces on the sides. The small red and yellow bits really help add a touch of color. There is still quite some system building, but I'm glad you changed it to be more Technic, because otherwise I would have had a hard time accepting it as an entry (even though it was equally good as a model by itself). But I like how you found a build that both complies with the competition, and still looks great visually.

I really like this one. Somehow I especially like the shape of the superstructure. I think this angled shape is just how cranes like this actually look. It's a rather minimalist shape, but that's exactly how real cranes look as well. I also really like the truss-like boom structure. Nice find with the triangles, and the extension/retraction mechanism is just genius. Bonuspunt for using a nonstandard way to control it, rather than the same-old long gear rack. The boxy shape of the carrier also works, but I have the idea that is'a bit big in compraison to the superstructure. A somewhat skinnier carrier (more ground clearance) would have made the model look even more realistic, I think. But that would be my only remark. The gray color contrasts nicely with the yellow/black combo of the upper part. Also, the boom has got a quite nice range. Great entry.

27. City crane Functions: steering on axles 1 and 3 - from white gear on the rear of the carrier outriggers (all 4 linked) - from knobs on the side of the carrier slewing (manual) - no knob raising boom with long LA - from knob on the bottom rear of the superstructure extending boom - from knob on the top rear of the superstructure string reel - from knob on the top of the superstructure manually attached jib - use brown axle to attach to inner boom, swing out and lock, and reroute the string over it Dimensions: fits in a box of 41 (length) x 14 (width) x 17 (height) = 9758 cubic studs. Images: Discussion topic:

Sorry for not replying more often and showing progress more often, but I had both other obligations, and other interests. But I finished the model - I believe I'm still on time for the contest. I changed the color scheme from red to yellow to avoid copying sets like 42077, I think this color scheme is used less, so I think it's more interesting. Also, I had exactly enough 3x11 panels in yellow to do the boom in that color. I think I have a pretty nice list of functions for a model this size: steering on axles 1 and 3 outriggers (all linked) from knobs on the side of the carrier slewing, manual (no knob) raising boom with long LA, from knob on the bottom rear of the superstructure extending boom, from knob on the top rear of the superstructure string reel, from knob on the top of the superstructure manually attached jib I'm particularly happy with the counterweight section of the superstructure, because that section packs 3 function gear trains, and 2 of them are geared up to make them less of a pain to use manually (i.e. make them work faster). Actually, there is a 24:8 gear pair at the bottom of the superstructure to gear up the winch operation while using a worm, so I didn't need a ratchet (that would have increased the height probably). I had to make a few adjustments to make it fit the box. The vehicle is 13 wide, but those 2 knobs on the sides made the whole thing 15 wide, which wasted a lot of box volume. With 17 height and 41 length, this didn't fit. So I had to change the innards of the carrier to make the knobs 14 wide. But now the gears rub against the panels, so maybe it's actually 14.1. But I consider that 14. The height is 17, also because I lowered the knob on top to sit flush with the roof of the cabin. With those measurements, the available length would have been 42 (42 x 14 x 17 = 9996) which could have been the nearest to the 10`000 limit of maybe all entries :) But alas, the total crane is only 41 long, meaning 41 x 14 x 17 = 9758. Still nice. Also, I added a jib :D Now, the rules state, no taking stuff off to stay within the box, but the jib can be attached using a brown #5 axle, but this isn't needed to stay in the box, so I consider that legal. And it's an extra function, which increases the range considerably :) Here's how the jib works. It is attached to the main boom using the brown #5 axle with the white 2L beam. If you remove that, and put it at the end where the 3x7 bent liftarm sits betewen the blue connectors, then it can be rotated 180 degrees (and then locked with the 2L beam on the brown axle) and the string can be reeled over the pulley at the end. Finally, box proof: I will write up the entry post this evening. :)

That would deter me even more from buying the set. I'd theoretically be fine with paying 370 euro for 3700 pieces. But not 450 euro for 3700 pieces plus junk I don't want. Edit: but I'm not the target audience anyway, so it doesn't really matter what I think :)

having read through the last 4 pages or so, I think my feeling with the set is summed up best as follows. Nice set. Not Technic though. (But oh well. The scale modeling forum is now here too, so let's just call it that.) Gearbox, at first glance, seems to be the same as Sian's. But I don't own the Sian so I could be wrong. Doors are neat. No other interesting functions. Best new part for me is the bigger rim. That opens some nice options. New panels - fun, but not Technic. What is Technic, but not fun, is introducing a new, totally incompatible new gear system. The only positive note about them is that 22 teeth is useful to create a 7 : 11 ratio. However, the gear has a round hole, so that's useless too. Now, what would be totally in the spirit of Lego as a building system, would be to introduce an inset piece with an axlehole that would fit in those 3 slots, and include it in the set to offer more options for the part. But of course, that's now how Lego works these days. And as suggested, those geass are probably a hint of stuff to come. But to me, that doesn't bode well, because that would mean this "stuff to come" will be - again - bigger. And we know bigger is not the same as better. I'm sure AFOLs wil put the gears to great use, as with all new parts, but where is the time that official sets were as big as needed, but as small as possible, so as to be actually affordable? Fans of fun, complex, manual technical sets (that are not racing things) right now still have only two choices right now - the tow truck and the 42139 offroader. EditL what I do like though, is how it doesn't use the default suspension arms. Edit: 1x2 xo beams in blue! :D

I got to manually uninstalling the whole thing and then reinstalling the new AIOI installer (and the additional tools), and the problem seems to be solved! I still don't understand why the same installer behaved differently on 2 computers, but at least things work now. I do have to redefine my favorites and all other MLCad settings, but oh well. Thanks to all who took their time to help :D

I checked that folder, and that folder has an LDConfig.ldr. But it's even weirder. If I replace the LDConfig.ldr in that folder by the version of 2018, and then in the color window I press "load LDConfig colors" then I see the correct colors in the color list (but still not in the color bar on the top). But of course, I'm having the 2018 definitions. But If I replace the LDConfig.ldr in that folder by the version of 2022-02, and then in the color window I press "load LDConfig colors" then I see the default colors (with the dithered stuff beyond 256). It looks like this version of MLCad simply doesn't load those new colors. Version is 3.50 by the way. Searching my file system for mlcad.exe I see there are two versions, one from 2015 and one from 2019. Apparently, it hasn't installed the newest version. So I think I'm going to uninstall the whole thing and then re-install, and see what it does...

Where does MLCad take its ldconfig? I'm asking, because before the update all was fine; since the update, it somehow can't load colors. Given what I see and what you explain about the "old dithered rules", the problem doesn't seem to be "the wrong LDconfig" but rather "it can't find any LDconfig at all, and falls back to a default". I mean, any old config file at least has better definitions for basic colors, like tan and dark tan, than the image shows. Also, I replaced all ldconfig.ldr by the new 2022-02 version, and I still get the wrong colors in MLCad. The same (new) file is now in 7 places: C: -> Users -> Gebruiker -> AppData -> Local -> LPub3D Software -> LPub3D -> extras C: -> Program Files -> LDraw (64 Bit) -> LPub3D -> extras C: -> Users -> Public -> Documents -> LDraw C: -> Program Files -> LPub3D -> data C: -> Program Files (x86) -> LDraw -> MLCad (I manually added it here) C: -> Program Files (x86) -> LDraw (32 Bit) -> MLCad (I manually added it here) C: -> Users -> Gebruiker -> AppData -> Roaming -> Ing. Michael Lachmann -> MLCad (I manually added it here) But if MLCad loads the wrong LDconfig file, I should get the colors I had previously, with at least decent colors for 90% of them. But the old "dithered colors" are since the update, and seem to indicate not "wrong file" but rather "no file at all". Also, there are 4 buttons in MLCad's color selector (save default; load default; default ldconfig; load ldconfig. I tried all four, but I see no difference in appeareance, nor in the existence of any ldconfig files on my file system. So, still no clue...

My browser also warns me and specifically asks me to trust the file. I believe all versions do that. Or at least, I have seen this a few times before with new LDraw versions. I think the program is just not popular enough to be "verified" as safe by those protection programs. Understandable, but I trust the LDraw site and there doesn't seem to be anything suspicious.

OK so now I got something I really don't understand. I decided it was time to install the newest Ldraw "AIOI" (All in one installer) along with the "ATI" (additional tools installer) on my secondary PC. I did, and I got really happy, because now, vibrant coral and neon yellow are defined as colors. (It's the 2022-02 version from here: LDraw.org - Windows.) So I decided to put those installers on a USB stick and I installed the exact same files on my primary PC. But now all the colors are mashed up. Here's how it looks on my primary PC. Screenshots from MLCad 3.51 I can't show how it looks on the secondary PC, because that one is not nearby right now. Now I have had before that the colors were all messed up, but I just assumed these were the new MLCad colors, because I didn't have installed the same thing on 2 PC's. But now I have seen the difference, I know the problem is not with the new color definitions - it's something on my PC ruining the colors. But what? The wrong colors only show up after installing the new package. All was fine beforehand (except missing the new colors.) Here's some screenshots from MLCad versus LDview. As you can see, the new install improved things in LDView (coral and neon yellow added and some colors like bright light yellow improved. However, tan is now too dark) But in MLCad, everything is messed up. Basic colors work, although some have really ugly outlines that weren't there (blue, red and green) and most colors beyond the default range (like reddish brown) are either totally different, or not there at all. Before the install, the colors were the same in MLCad and LDview (like in the right image) but of course I can't show the MLCad screenshot, because I can't get the colors to work in MLCad anymore. I tried replacing ldconfig.ldr with a version from 2018 - no change in MLCad, but LDview reverted to the old colors. I can live with that, but LDview was already fine so that doesn't help me. I tried replacing mlcad.ini with a version from 2017 (when I am sure it worked) - no change in MLCad. I tried replacing mlcad.cfg with an older version - no change in MLCad. How do I get the new colors in MLCad? Or, at the least, how do I get the same colors in both programs? It's especially weird because having installed exactly the same packages on another PC yielded the new colors just fine - including vibrant yellow and coral. Anyone any ideas? Thanks in advance :D

Just asking, but what are the elactic bands for? I mean, the cylinder should stay on its place without them, right? Maybe the connection with the cylinder's bottom with the blue #1 connector isn't the strongestpossible. Maybe extend the axle 2L below it to 3L and use that extra length to join another axle/bush connector to reinforce the connection to the cylinder?

Sell them, and get yourself 6 of those new Batman tires. BrickLink - Part 52985 : LEGO Tire 68.7 x 27 S [Tire & Tread] - BrickLink Reference Catalog Same diameter, 3 mm wider, and a lot cheaper (even though they are also still in only 1 set...). Edit: average used bricklink prices for wheel+tyre is around 35 euro for the 5571 and 6 euro for the new Batman tyre, so that is 29 euro profit per tyre. Ridiculous, but take your advantage :)

Nice solution, looks great :)

I'd say it's a great improvement. Proportions look much better and more serious now. Although there's a lot of beams there at the start of the boom. And that area happens tobe around 3 x 7 studs. What if you'd use those red 3x7 curved panels on the start of the boom instead of on the superstructure? That might give a cleaner look. But that would use up the panels and leave the superstructure open. Maybe you could use a few black panels there? Also I'm not sure if it's even possible structurally. Maybe there's then no way to connect everything. I don't know, I'm just throwing some ideas out there :)

This has to be the model I least expected. Proportion-wise it looks a bit like a caricature, but it seems to be the most functional thing in existence. It totally doesn't feel "small" as the contest intended, but if it fits in the box, it counts. Though I must say everything about the model screams "I just wanted to fit as much in the box as possible" rather than "small-scale construction vehicle" ;) But oh well. I think it's quite the result because of this :) Note that the model is 48 studs long, not the 44 that was claimed, meaning the volume is 48 x 13 x 16 = 9984. Still counts, and shows you really found the limit of what's possible :)

First experiment with the boom. The whole superstructure is crude, just to see if I can get things to fit. The boom is 4 studs wide, which I think is reasonably to scale. 5 is too much, 3 is too little, also, 3 doesn't allow space for an inner section. But it does mean the boom is not centered, because the cabin is 5 wide and the whole crane is 13 wide, so 5 + 4 + 4. But I don't mind that. A side view: The red things below are just there to keep track of the height (17 studs). I have decided I want to rework the chassis to lower the outriggers by one stud. That should be possible. Then, the're less in the way of the superstructure, and they will actually lift the vehicle (which right now they don't). As a final little test, toying around with cabin shape (don't mind the blue and red bits, these are temporary): If I do this cabin shape, the color scheme will have to change though, because I don't have many colors where I hvae the required parts. Basically, only black and white, and I don't like to use black too much. So I probably switch to white for the cabin, but I don't want an all-white crane, so I think I pick another color for the boom and outriggers. Not sure yet, I only have 3x11 panels in a few colors.