allanp

This is looking great, wonder if you could fit in a pull back motor!

You can still build a flat bed truck, you just have to make it better or at least different

Thankyou I have just built it in LLD and including all hoses there are 200 parts exactly . The base of the arm is high from an aesthetic point of view but it's raised so the hoses don't hit the tracks when in it's lowered position. As it is there is about 1mm clearance. I see your point about the seat. I'll try it in a different colour to see how it looks or change the design so it looks more finished. And yes, the hoses are long but the rules are not too clear on if I can cut them as it might make it count as two parts? As it is they are the original lengths as found in current sets. Perhaps JIm can clarify? Tho TBH I don't think I want to cut them anyway.

The quality and strength of these parts are better than I would have thought.

Thanks for the comments guys Made some improvements to the digging arm. Here's the old: The range of movement is not very good and it looks a bit plain. Here's the new: Range of movement is much better and it's more powerful and controllable. Digs extremely well and very easy to operate. It's small but it gets the job done

Yeah, and enough more parts to build this

You've been featured on technicBRICKS. Conchas only picks really cool models to show there, well done

Thanks guys Made more progress. 198 pieces.....I think. Now that I look at it, I kinda like the way the switches wrap round the seat. The hoses to the middle cylinder are a bit long though.

Yup! I'm currently using a 2x6x2 weighted brick. It's just below the pump. Thanks for the comment. The two outer switches are low for ease of access and looks. The middle switch is there to give room for a seat and hoses and ease of access. But yeah, it would look better in line. Hmmmm.

So, I built this.... ...and I was already close to 200 parts, access to the switches is not great, cab looking too big, the whole thing bends when you pump it and there is nowhere to put a counter weight. I could complete it within the parts but it would look bad. So I built this. Got rid of the geared slewing to free up some parts, switches are in a more realistic place as well as being easier to operate and it's very solid. Rear is coming on nice, pump fitted on top of weighted brick and it's all still very solid with way less parts.

Not a lot!

And so it begins!

I think the ideal thing for the steering in this particular model would be a better remote that can make use of the 15 steps in the servos movement as well as being absolute, not relative. By that I mean, by moving the control stick to any position, the servo will move to that position as opposed to the train remote where moving the dial one click moves the servo to the next step. You probably already know my thoughts on the rest of the model .

It can steer but note that you will have to place the steering rack in front of the axle to get the correct Ackermann geometry.

Here is what I think should make a flagship: Authenticity (functionally and especially mechanically more so than aesthetically but all three are important), lots of functionality (obviously. All functionality must work with a realistic sense of power and reliability, not like the outriggers of 42009), complexity (but not for it's own sake. Must be complex not just to make it more complex but to recreate the complexity of the real life counterpart and out of a need to create lots of authentic functionality. I enjoy the complexities of sets like 8043 and 42009 and whilst they do display great skill by the designer I much prefer the complexity of sets like 8110, 8868 and 8455), innovation (in terms of new functionality not seen or possible before), new parts (to aid innovation but also to make things simpler and easier for 11-16 years olds to build and understand the mechanisms. Remember what I said about things not being complex just for the sake of complexity? New gearbox parts would make for a more authentic and innovative (in terms of technic) gearbox that is more efficient and reliable for motorisation and also easier to build requiring less parts and easier to fully understand how it creates all the different speed ratios. Requiring less parts to build it would also be available in smaller sets, keeping the mechanisms simple and easy to build whilst also increasing the complexity and authenticity of a model overall just by having a working transmission.), high piece count (this one has a caveat. Like complexity, a high piece count should be there because it is needed to achieve another aspect of what makes a good flagship and not just for the sake of having a large piece count. Personally I consider 8455 one of the best flagships ever, looking at the list above it achieves many of it's requirements despite being under 800 pieces. That's not to say I prefer low piece counts, of course I would love lots of sets with over 2000 pieces, but if that high piece count isn't going towards making the model more mechanically authentic, leading to building many authentic mechanisms to reproduce many working functions and so on then having a high piece count turns into a negative as it is increasing the cost of the set, both to produce and to buy for no reason other than being able to say it has lots of parts, and can make for a needlessly long and boring build. It's like how having a big budget is usually needed to make a good summer blockbuster movie, but having a big budget does not guarantee it will be a good movie.) A little extra touch of class (this is that little extra care that tells you this is something special. Like having engine blocks in green (is that the only thing 42030 gets right?) or 5x7 and 5x11 frames in new colours, or other more standard colour parts like axles, pneumatics and so on in other colours just to add that little extra, like the white axles in 8480 or the green axles in the barcode truck. For today's flagships intended for older builders I'de like to see colour vomit removed altogether, all pins and gears in black or grey, all axles in black except when aesthetics require otherwise (like 8480). And while I'm going down this road again why not a return of the clear plastic lids just for the flagships . Instructions that show this is a flagship model, not your run of the mill set for beginners, so one big thick book, less steps with more parts in each step and even those black and yellow chevrons on the edges. Also, more care should be but into the placement of controls in a flagship, so no little imaginary operators having to climb to the end of a boom to reach the knob that moves whatever is right next to it like was the case with 8258.)

Sure is.

If it's small and light it might not make much difference. Another option could be to only power one wheel or use less grippy tyres.

I'de say that as long as it's static it's legal. I'de also say that I prefer the original axle because it's more life like, but that's just me . If only the hubs were deeper and the portal gearboxes designed to fit deeper inside the wheel.

8110 is number one by a million miles, as for the others I wouldn't be so sure to get 42030. 8043 is probably a better alternative.

Kewl!

OK, well I can rescale them now but if you still want the files I will get a .stl converter.

I can export to .dae or .kmz but I'm sure there's a .stl converter somewhere. @notareal thanks for the info I'll have to try that out. EDIT: Just tried rescaling my larger parts by 0.001 and they have come out perfect! I thought I already tried that, guess not . NOTHER EDIT: Ah, last time I tried it I didn't make it a component first, making it a component is what made it work this time. Thanks man

What file formats can you read?

I've updated my diff design, now modelled in google sketchup. Problem is that program cannot handle sizes that are very small so these models are 1000 times too big (so instead of a gear being 12.7mm it's now 12.7 meters!). Anyone know of a good free program which I can use to down scale them? Would you like me to send you the files Efferman? Edit: Oh, I also worked on a 56 tooth gear with the holes being in the same place as the one in the lego movie whilst still being only 56 tooth to make it fit with an 8 tooth gear easily on a beam. Unfortunately I think the outer holes may be too close to the edge to use a chain or tread links.