Xan326

General question for anyone here who has made custom bevel gears, what bevel profile are you using? Spur gears are easy enough to design, I have all the relevant information needed for parametric modelling, but I'm more interested in bevel gears due to their versatility, and I have yet to find relevant information on their additional design constraints. I went into Stud.IO and compared the various bevel gears, and noticed a lot of inconsistencies, unless the LDraw models are incorrect but I doubt this is the case; the only consistencies seem to only appear in the older double bevel gears. Each of the single bevel gears seem to use a different profile, and from what I can tell this profile isn't consistent with each other. The single bevel 28 tooth differentials seemed to introduce a new tooth profile altogether, the largest change being the angle of the bevel, which the new 28 tooth double bevel gears follow this new design, but they're not based on the same radius, the differentials have a slightly smaller gear; to further this, the 28 tooth double bevels also have a different spur profile in the center of the gear. Because of these differences, each gear outside of the set of the old double bevels has a different tapering on the bevel portion itself. I was wanting to draw up some gears, but then noticed this issue. Lego's bevel gears are also far different from what standard bevel gears typically are like, so I'm not having luck finding a parametric script to generate the correct profiles. Is it common practice to just borrow the tooth profile from other gears and hope they mesh well? As an example, if I wanted a 16 tooth single bevel half gear, would I just borrow the tooth profile from the 12z or 20z gear? Or is there a program or parametric script I haven't come across yet that generates a profile that's compatible with Lego's bevel gears? Also, would it be better to follow the older profile or newer profile of the teeth, because the newer 28 tooth gears do have a significant difference in design.

You seem offended, maybe don't resort to flaming. The point of my post was that functional pieces with very limited scope in implementation generally do not exist. Look at almost any, if not every, functional Technic piece and look at how usable it is outside of its original implementation in it's original set. This is why a miniature planetary does not make sense, it only has a singular intended use that doesn't match the ecosystem of parts. If a miniature planetary were to exist, it'd also need it's own ecosystem of accessory pieces to mount onto the flange outside of the ring gear, thus more parts and more investment. Similarly, track suspension does not make sense in the way that most tracked vehicles implement it, between idlers, in the current track system Lego provides; if the suspension was based on extension of the rollers instead, then it'd make more sense. Keep in mind that Lego also requires an ROI on every piece they develop, meaning super specific pieces just do not make sense, especially when the new pieces need an entirely new system to make any sense, such as proper idlers and idler-based suspension in a track system. I don't see Lego investing that amount of money into something that has a very narrow scope of usage. When instead Lego can develop a set as they typically do, have any gear reduction using already-existing parts within the body of the set, then drive a solid wheel, and budget money elsewhere. Keep in mind that ROI also comes with a higher price tag on sets. Look at the Liebherr, we're more than likely getting that in the form of a dozer, minus one function. $450 price tag, dual PoweredUP hubs, left and right drive, with 4 functions; where the Liebherr had an additional swing function that the D11T doesn't need. With probably a new single-piece blade, and possible newer pieces within the ripper. Possibly with a newer large linear actuator for blade lift if the model is going to properly represent the real life model. Any new parts would have a larger scope of usability throughout the theme, and a single-piece blade would have higher playability value (see previous post, in case you didn't read it all) which adds value to the piece even if it has limited use. A miniature planetary and proper track components would just be expensive for parts that have a very narrow scope. Where else would a miniature planetary gearset be used? A powered turntable perhaps, but we already have parts that fill that need. Just like the current sprockets are good enough to be used in place of idlers, rather than developing an entirely new system. What you're asking for is approaching levels of proprietary pieces that the Radio Control subtheme of Racers had, and we all remember how long those lasted, don't we? Or similarly, the x928cx1 piece from the Hockey subtheme of the Sports subtheme; or really anything from the Sports theme's larger sets could apply to this argument to be fair. Super proprietary pieces with limited scope historically do not work well. If you had read the entire post at all, you would've noticed that I also wish for these realistic pieces to exist. But I also understand that they won't exist due to scale, scope, and the current ecosystem of parts. Don't get offended over your wishes not being compatible with what's currently provided. You want realism but can't even have realistic expectations, how ironic. If you really want these parts, go and 3D print your own, then witness how they're either too complex (as in, an assembly of smaller non-Lego-esque pieces that only adapts to other Lego-esque pieces), too limited (as in, one-use pieces that have near to no scope of implementation outside it's original intended use, or does not meet a volume of sets that would use the part that makes investment make sense), or just outright do not work with what's currently available (such as a track idler, the same width as current sprockets, either slipping off of tracks or being tensioned to the point of stressing the hooks in the tracks, thus an illegal building technique), then 3D print a system that allows these ideas to work flawlessly (as in, developing an entirely new track system that makes idlers and sprockets of the same dimensions, minus sprocket teeth, work within a track, thus an entire system of parts), then apply your new knowledge to the development process Lego uses, and the costs associated with that; foresight is an extremely useful tool that'll show you why the ideas are impractical, and if you lack foresight, dumping a significant amount of money (keep in mind Lego's investment would be orders of magnitude larger than your own) into ideas that don't work out will give you the hindsight to understand the issues. At the end of the day, it's just impractical for these pieces to exist, and the realism factor is unreasonable for these to exist. The amount of unrealistic expectation here is similar to asking Lego for proper 45° helical gears, which we all know will never happen within the current era of Technic. This is why I'm only expecting a large linear actuator, a single-piece blade, and maybe new ripper pieces, to be the only new pieces. A large linear actuator already fits the ecosystem, as it's just a larger variant that already exists. A single-piece blade would add playability value, just like the single-piece bucket pieces do, as Lego is a children's toy; similarly with newer ripper pieces, something that's more sturdy than some axles with a couple bushes on them. This is why I also say a smaller version of the 24121 piece is our most likely chance of seeing a planetary set, as it fits the ecosystem of parts and has flexibility in internal gear ratios. Rather than get offended and provide a non-argument, maybe provide an actual argument. You mention 8448 had new/specialized parts, which is correct, but look at the parts it provided and look at the scope of usability for the parts. Every 'specialized' part 8448 provided can be used an endless amount of times, and has had a very wide scope of usability, either as the original part themselves or as a successor to the original part. Now apply that to the idea of fitting a planetary gearbox within a wheel, that really only has one use, and any other use the part provides already has parts being used for that use, thus a very limited scope of usability, thus why I don't think that'll ever actually exist, and thus why I say a smaller version of 24121 is probably the smallest planetary we would ever see. Unless Lego suddenly has a high volume of implementation for a piece with such a small scope of usability, it's impractical for it to exist. Look back at x928cx1 for an example of why limited scope pieces fail when they don't have a high volume of usability. This is why I say these ideas are unrealistic, because they factually are, which is why I also say to look at a proper scale model if you do want levels of realism that're unrealistically high for Lego. Similar arguments are also why one-piece body shells for the supercars don't exist, and why you should look at a different hobby if you want that amount of realism. But what would I know, clearly I don't know enough about Technic, Lego, or the hobby. All it takes is a bit of logical thought to determine what expectations and wishes are and aren't realistic. Fascinating, isn't it?

What's the actual likelihood of us getting planetary final drives? The smallest possible planetary would be 5 studs wide at the ring, 7 studs wide at the mounting flange, using 8 tooth gears. Mounting any wheel, sprocket included, would bump the diameter to 9 studs wide minimum, possibly 8 studs but I doubt Lego would deviate from the odd-number spacing of sprockets. With 9 stud wide hollow sprockets for a planetary gear, that would bump the scale up from a potential 1:21.5 to a 1:16.6 scale, resulting in an absolutely massive model. This gearbox would either have to be a fully custom assembly, which I don't see Lego doing, or would be a very limited gearset due to the fact that it's only 8 tooth sun and planet gears with a meshing ring, which again I don't see Lego doing due to very narrow scope of usability. If Lego were to give us a planetary gearset, I think they'd end up giving us a miniaturized version of 24121, the 11x11 curved rack that's a quarter of a full ring, due to being more flexible in gear ratios, rather than a fixed ratio of the smallest options. What's the likelihood of having any form of idler that's compatible with the current track system? This would have to be 3 studs in thickness to have the idler rollers located on the outside of the chain of the track, as there's no way to locate an idler in the current tracks without it slipping out. I don't think Lego would deviate in this way, as it doesn't match the sprockets at all. This also compounds with the likelihood of a proper suspension, Lego would probably say a properly taut suspension, which would help locate a non-grooved solid idler, may stress the track pieces beyond what they were designed to do, and thus an illegal building technique; the tracks are designed to have a specific amount of slop between two sprockets, with a three sprocket system being possible but slightly out of designed tolerance. There's also the option of Lego developing an entirely new track system to implement proper idlers and rollers, but I don't see this happening either due to high investment cost for making the parts that won't see a high volume of use, and due to the limitations and design choices around implementing an idler into the already-existing track system, I don't see that part being made either, unless that idler wheel is also compatible with tires, which would greatly expand how often the part is used. Also keep in mind cost associated with this set. I wouldn't be surprised if CAT has some hefty licensing fees, though probably not as high as Disney's. This set will also more than likely include PoweredUP, and if it mimics the D11T, it'll have 6 motorized functions, left and right drive, blade lift and tilt, and ripper lift and tilt, all of which come with their own higher price tag. If we look at the D11T, we can see that both tilt actuators are roughly equal size, ripper lift is shorter, and blade lift is longer, if we see any new parts, we'll probably see a large linear actuator if all of this is motor driven, or the return of the dual cylinder bracket if pneumatics are used. Due to sizing and costs, we probably won't see anything new within the track system, we might see a new actuator or the return of long-dead pieces, and there's a possibility we might see blade and ripper pieces similar to how we have large, single piece buckets. The rest will more than likely be an enclosed body, with a specific engine assembly, and 6 PoweredUP functions. Then a ton of decals for CAT and D11T branding. I'll be surprised if Lego does give us any new pieces for the current track system, an entirely new track system, or a small planetary gearset that works as the final drive in an extra large hollow socket. If we do see anything new within the track system, it'll probably be some kind of rubberized coating or a rubberized piece that isn't a massive bump or a rubberized stud, but even expecting that is a bit of a stretch. Expectations of realism like this just aren't realistic when you look at the simplicity of Lego, this kind of realism would be more in-line with a dedicated scale model. Expecting this level of realism would be akin to asking Lego to produce a single piece body shell for the supercars, or asking Lego for a limited slip differential, or a torsen differential, when we all know either form of differential will never fit within the scope and design language of what's already established; reasons why a miniature planetary gearset that comes as an assembly is unlikely. While I would also like these realistic parts, I know they're not going to happen, and the only reasonable way to get this level of realism in Lego is to 3D print your own custom parts. Always ask yourself if a part idea fits within the established ecosystem, and if it doesn't then don't expect that idea to become a reality. Excavator buckets are really the only major deviation from this, but it's a reasonable deviation due to the geometry of those buckets being improbable to achieve with standard liftarm building techniques, especially with the smaller buckets, plus the one-piece buckets adds play value to a set as objects can be picked up with no gaps in the bucket; Lego is a children's toy after all, the buckets make sense. Whereas one-piece body shells, extremely intricate assemblies for miniaturized planetary gearsets, and small planetary gearsets that will only have a single gear ratio do not make sense. Lego gearing has a specific pattern, tooth count follows a rotational symmetry of 4, and each size alternates between spur and bevel; with ring gears being the only slight deviation from this rule, for obvious reasoning. Lego gearing is also extremely flexible in what you can do with it, given that you have liftarm mounts that allow for it, where a single ratio planetary would deviate from this, thus it doesn't fit the ecosystem of parts. Any new parts are going to fit the needs of high versatility in usability, and need to match Lego's own design language. This is also why one-use parts like a single piece body shell for a car do not exist within the scale and scope of Technic. But this is why single piece buckets do exist, as they're highly functional in play value. Thus why I believe the want for realistic components will lead to nothing, they're too limited in use, and don't necessarily fit the design language of the part ecosystem. So let's be realistic. We're getting a set that resembles the D11T. With functions that resemble the D11T's functions. With branding that resembles the D11T. With functions being remote controlled through PoweredUP. With the set more than likely being based on a 1:21.5 scale, using the 42529 XL sprocket as the basis of the scale. With new(er) parts to enhance the resemblance and to expand an already existing line of parts, a large linear actuator in the linear actuator line, or expanding the usability of parts, reintroducing the double cylinder bracket for pneumatics. Nothing more, nothing less. This is an entirely reasonable expectation, as this is what Lego typically does, and why I would be surprised if we get any super specific new parts that have a very narrow scope of usability.

Killing yourself with 9 volt tracks? I don't think so, the power isn't there to really harm anything. Even recharging batteries doesn't have the chance of electrocuting someone to death. Again, there's not enough power for it to do anything. There's only one possible way that these components could electrocute someone to death, but there's a very slim chance of that happening.

It's been awhile since I've touched a Dubplo brick, but doesn't a standard 2x2 brick fit on a Duplo stud?

Sbrick made their own IR brick that's 4x4 with 4 outputs, TLG has absolutely no excuse as to why they're not making smaller components. As for Radio Control, Bluetooth could work, but there could be problems with phone interference. On top of whatever protocol for WPAN they could use, NFC would be great for quick connect. As for motor ideas; a 2x2 small motor would be great for engines that don't use the standard wheel setup (such as shunters) or train engine with studs instead of the block with the single connector on the top. 2x2 small motor would be great for other ideas, such as the crane cars (don't know the official name, just remember them from a Lionel game and old wooden train stuff) or other functional units. As for my earlier idea for the right angle connector, use something like 8886 or 8871 and use one end as the right angle. Reason being, the connector is over 2 studs long with the plastic end and wire, a true 2x2 piece would be easier for compact models where you don't have the extra stud of space. Now the battery packs. I don't think much can be done for them. Yes, higher voltage could be helpful, but there would need to be a voltage step down module. And people being people, that one key component can be forgotten, and that would damage the lower voltage components. Though the form factor can be changed from 4x8 to 2x16; longer, yes, but this could work great for some engines that need to be 4 wide with a stud wide walk space around.

Staying within 6 wide trains; small engines with power functions and realism isn't easy to pull off, having both throws off proportions of the engine. Also I think TLG should start getting away from IR. Bluetooth with NFC quick connect could solve many problems that occur with IR. And the best thing, the components could easily be put into a small form factor, and can be completely concealed unlike the IR components. This could even be easily implemented into the pf train motor, which means less space taken up. I'm looking to make a powered class 05 shunter, as far as I know those are some of the smallest engines I've seen. The day we can have an engine that small be completely rc is the day we can do anything with Lego trains. My problem is, while sticking to the 6 wide standard, there's no way of making it unless the battery box and IR component can come in specialized colors; that's the reason why thinner components would be beneficial.

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I'm new to the tains forum. Anyways, I have ideas for power functions components that would make having realistic looking trains easier. First, the power pack. A thinner one would help building small engines easier, as the current one is 4 wide, it makes building a realistic small shunter impossible. I'm talking about the shunters with small engines that had standing room around the engine. Second, the IR brick. I have a couple ideas for this. Remake the brick to where it's 2x6 with the IR sensor in the center 2 studs with the connectors on each side; or 2x4 as trains only use one pf connector. Again, this would help with smaller engines and realism, as it would give an extra 2 studs to work with. Next, a new motor. A small motor could be helpful for powering trains that don't conform to the normal standard of having a set of wheels that turn separately from the engine. Again, could help with shunters, as they have 3 closely set wheels with a blank space in front and behind. I've had this idea for awhile, but I don't think most will like it. An extension wire, but one end has the wires coming from the top of the brick. It could help in small spaces where you can't have the wire protruding from the side of the connector. Of course you can't stack anything on top, but that's why the other end is a standard connector. My last idea for a pf part is a sound brick. It could add realism to those that make a model railway. Some actual model engines have sound components, so why can't Lego trains? Now for my regular parts. Regular train wheels with an option for a beam connector. This could help for smaller steam engines and shunters. If you look at a shunter, they're powered at the back with a weighted wheel, which turns the regular wheels. Next, a cross axle made specifically for trains. Going on with the first idea, there can't be a small amount of cross axle protruding from the wheel. Next, again going with the first idea, a connector for the beam. As the wheels aren't a full stud in depth, and a half stud beam would work best, there should be a connector specific for that. My last idea is a ladder that's a bit deeper than the current one. One that wouldn't interfere with the previous ideas. Screenshot (1) by xan326, on Flickr That shows the current issue of having a beam and a ladder. I know these most likely will never happen, but it would be nice if we got more parts that will help with creating realistic engines. Feel free to comment and post your own ideas.

I know this probably wouldn't happen, but, I'd like to see smaller sets. With all the sets being expensive, its hard to get into the train theme. It'd be nice if they made Trains into it's whole subtheme of city, then we could possibly get sets that are cars/engines. I'd also like to see smaller power functions components, it'd make building smaller engines and shunters a lot easier.

I have no idea how to edit start menu shortcuts, I'm not used to Windows 8 yet. I know it's linked the same as the desktop shortcut since it was put in the start menu by the install wizard.

Okay, so this has happened with past versions and now the current version. I'm on Windows 8 (Not 8.1), and when I launch from my start menu, LDD will come up in compatibility mode. But when I launch from my desktop, it launches just fine. It's not a major thing, but sometimes its easier to just go to my start menu and launch it from there, as opposed to collapsing my windows and finding it on my desktop. I haven't really seen much on this issue, but it would be nice if someone has some tips to fix it.

I haven't gotten into Chima yet, I saw something on CN the the other day for the animated show and to me it looked like a Lego version of Thunder Cats (the newer one that they unfortunately cancelled) I'm guessing it's geared more towards kids, but might get the sets for the parts.

I just ordered Dragon Bolt and I'm getting the black brain I think I might add the black brain into a revamp of nebula, matches the theme. And darkbrick999, I might check out the Chima sets sometime, I haven't gotten into it yet just because there's so many actual sets.. and my ocd wouldn't allow me not to get them all.

I think I'll start with Dragon Bolt, then go from there. I think I'll collect all the brains first then go for the heroes. Thanks all for the suggestions!

Thanks everyone for the suggestions! I think I'll pick up Furno or DB just because I can get one for free with all my VIP points, which I need to spend them all because someone told me they expire soon. I'll definitely be picking up the others, but I should use my points first.