28 minutes ago, Sariel said:

  .... incredible sticker job...

Edit: to add something useful to the discussion, kids grow up and improve their behaviour and skills constantly.

The OP should listen to the more experienced guys, rename the topic to "WIP", then improve his crane before calling it finished. Or be proud of himself and let the critics not allow to hurt his feelings.

Edited August 24, 20186 yr by brunojj1

56 minutes ago, Sariel said:

Sorry for being harsh, but a person can only take so much of this "everything is awesome" attitude that is so prevalent here. It's cool to be nice, but what's the point of closing your eyes to obvious flaws? You're not helping the OP improve by pretending his creation is flawless and there's nothing to improve in it. But sometimes it seems like the only appropriate reaction here is praise or shutting up.

I feel what you're getting at, but the opposite of praise is not bashing. Maybe you should copmare your posts here to my reply on page 1. I think what you're doing is destructive criticism. What parts of your post are actually usable by the OP to improve his (next) model?

I think what we should see here, and what most of us actually recognize, is the skill level of the builder. To me, @gate is obviously not such an experienced builder as you and me and many others here are. His model shows this. There are beginner's mistakes. But let's be honest: we all made these. And I know you think, well, it's the honest non-flattering feedback we get on those models from which we learn and can make our next models better. But, I can tell you, when I made these beginner mistakes, there was no internet to get feedback from. It was basically my parents who just liked me having this hobby, and my brother "testing " my models. Weak spots became obvious within seconds, I tell you  .

Yes, @gate's crane is far from perfect, and it's not a LTM1060. I fully agree with you. But does it deserve the bashing you give it, given the skill level of the builder? No. I assume (I always assume) the builder did his best. Stating it's all messed up and keeping repeating that, isn't helping, even if it's true. Also, he reacts in a normal nice way to feedback and replies (except yours. I wonder why), and I think that deserves a bit more praise. He seems to want to learn. For gate, building this crane is a learning experience. Also, this model gives insight in his skill level. When he posts his next model, we can compare and see if there are improvements. If not, then we can criticize. If so, then there can be praise for learning and improving, alongside constructive feedback. My contention is: give feedback on the process, not (just) the output.

To give you a case in point, maybe you should check out my post on page 1, which points out some problems, and compare it to your posts which basically says "the proportions are all wrong". Which of the two, do you think, is of most use by gate?

Edit: or, stated differently:

It's cool to be nice, but what's the point of closing your eyes to obvious flaws?

I say you can point out obvious flaws, and still be nice. Your posts point out the obvious flaws, but aren't very nice. 

/edit

I think one advice I would give to gate, from seeing this topic, would be: try doing something smaller and simpler next time.

Edited August 24, 20186 yr by Erik Leppen

I presume that some members are invoking alternative facts to bolster their stances in his discussion, non?

Like:

Fact: The model should only be called a model after a specific kind of real life machine if it manages to get a large part of the appearance and proportions right.

Alternative fact: If the models have some common parts and functions with a real life machine then it is sufficient to call the model with the name of that machine.

Edited August 24, 20186 yr by Ngoc Nguyen

12 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Fact: The model should only be called a model after a specific kind of real life machine if it manages to get a large part of the appearance and proportions right.

Opinion. Not fact. Explanation here:

 

45 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

But does it deserve the bashing you give it?

I've simply pointed out that it looks very different from how the real crane looks. And I've said a number of nice things about the model on top of that. How is that bashing, really?

@gate I still think your crane looks cool and it shows your "art" style, maybe its not accurate to the real deal but when I first got into technics  back in 1984 , most Lego technic sets barley look like what it represented and technically you are successful.. unfortunate, a generic crane "name" would of been  inappropriate but its your MOC and you can name it what ever you like, I hate to state this but I feel some individuals are more into the "looks" and forget about the technic side .. Can we have fun with our technics ???  that seems to been lost by a few individuals just over naming ..  we can't call a banana an apple but they are both called fruits!!!    

Edited August 24, 20186 yr by sirslayer

Thanks everyone for your opinions, really interesting to read. I feel the support, even though it is hidden sometimes:

For the record: I like the crane.

This discussion reminds me of how people debate over TLG sets, which makes me proud a little that I could bring it to the surface.

It seems that you’re MOC is impressive by its size. It is in line with the trend that the bigger a MOC or set, the more praise it gets by the general AFOL audience. For me personally, I’m more impressed by making a model as small as possible while still fitting in all the chosen functions. The limitation of a smaller size stimulates builders (professional or otherwise) to be more creative. Building big for the sake of being big is not my cup a tea. But you should build for yourself, not to please others

Secondly, I think this discussion (as others before it) is sparked by a mismatch in expectations. By stating that you are building a very specific crane model, you have inadvertently created a high level of expectations on this forum of very technology minded people.  It was probably unintentional and it is good to be ambitious, but a certain level of realism of what is possible with your bricks and skills is never a bad thing. Overselling will always backfire here.

I’m not familiar with your work to judge whether or not this crane is the next step in you development as a builder. It seems like a cool crane and it is obvious that you have put  a lot of work into it, but as others pointed out, there is plenty of room for improvement. My biggest concern in this case are the proportions of the vehicle, an issue which has nothing to do with its scale or size. This is what Sariel was pointing out with the image of the other MOC crane. Never mind the different building style, try to look at the position of the wheels in relation of each other and the body, the height of the body compared to its length, the position of the cabine, etc. Incorrect proportions  can be seen in many creations both by AFOLS as by TLG, can really make or break a creation and is something that I’m sensitive for. The more a model is representing a real machine instead of a generic model, the more errors in its proportions are obvious. Naturally, the Technic building system has its limitations, so a certain level of artistic freedom will always be needed. How much you deviate for the sake of rigidity or functionality is a very subjective choice. But a good build but with incorrect proportions  will never feel perfect to me. Even the Bugatti suffers from this because the designers were restricted by a certain wheel size .

Translating the proportions of a real machine to a model can be really tricky, but tools like Sariel’s modeler scaler are very valuable here. Master this and you will amaze yourself. To illustrate my point I rushed some images in Photoshop: This first image superimposes a drawing of the crane you mentioned and I have scaled this image to correspond with the size and position of the rear wheel on you MOC (marked by blue lines). You see that not many features match.

The next image shows the same illustration but scaled up to match what you were aiming for. The Claas wheels are too small in this case, but this is a limitation you will need to work with since there are no bigger wheels than the ones you have chosen. You see that even now some features do not fit well: the cabine is to far forward and the boom is too this to mention a few.

To prove that with a bit of effort, you can come quite close to the real thing with you MOC, I have hustled a screenshot of your movie to match the Liebherr more realistically:

In short, my advice would be: be motivated by the good comments you have received and try to learn from the tips and tricks given by more experience builders. Happy building.

You could use a massive wraparound bumper (like on the AC395 in Terminator 3) to give the cab some more heft at the front.

Hey guys, to be honest I totally agree with @Sariel: this MOC is pretty well for the Lego mobile crane, or "My crane" but I really do not understand in what place this could be a Liebherr. Nothing common. 

This do not mean crane is bad itself - nice huge model on a rough tyres! Like already mentioned - it may become  this:

 

But not a LIebherr LTM 1060.

If this MOC was mine, I would probably have called it mobile crane, but at the same time there is the artistic freedom that allows each of us to interpret things as we see them. It is actually quite fascinating to see how each of us has his own building skills, fantasy that can lead to so different results. It would be very boring if we all were building the same things ...

If we had this discussion in the scale model forum I would agree. There other (quality) criteria apply ...

It also can become your own designed crane!

You can or not choose to say your design is based on a real thing.

So speeking of your existing model and only this existing model, I could perhaps give you some advice?

Usually, you are at this point when I personally ask myself this:

- Ok, now I have a functional model, great!

- I have to separate function and design now.

- About function, do all of them work properly? is the design and mechanics ok in regards to TLG standards, what could I do better? Look function by function, making sequences for each of them

- is my build modular, can I extract difined sub assembly?, look at each subassembly and try to simplify them at max keeping all functionalities.Usualy I personaly remove 10 to 20% pieces from original rush to final model.

- From design point point of view, what are my design guidelines and program? are them clearly understandable and do my model be in correspondence to my goal?

- Can I simplify and clean my design elements like cab, chassis, crane cab, etc...

 

Looking at each and every once a time I am sure this model could be way better.

CAUTION! I am not telling you your model is not. I tell you that it has the potential to be still better!

And, BTW, you already managed to build a functional crane, not everyone here could do it, so keep up with this work, with patience, carrefuly designing each element and constantly having your very own criticism spirit.

 

Keep it on!

 

 

 

All said and done, I think it is more than reasonable to rename the MOC.

Thanks for the comparisons @Cumulonimbus, I appreciate it a lot. Then again I said from the beginning, when this topic was [WIP] - it was a free build.

I admit though that I misnamed it. To be honest I didn't thought this well through. And lately was just focusing on finishing the MOC design- and function-wise of how I see it.

EB won't let a single detail slip away

Edited August 24, 20186 yr by gate

It was probably in the video but I must've missed it - how much did you gear the drive motors down? And were you running the BuWizz on slow, normal or fast? (Or ludicrous, if they were 2.0 units).

I reckon that if you scale the model down to fit the Claas wheels better, the whole model'll be a lot more manageable and you can turn what is already a very good crane into a masterpiece.

Apologies for any unpleasantness this whole name thing has caused to you. 

Nice crane. Probably wouldn’t identify it with Liebherr, because those tend to have closely packed and bulky proportions. Yours is quite spread out lengthwise. That being said, the proportions give it a Russian crane truck appearance which I find quite funky and cool, and worth pursuing. If you do that you could tackle fewer but thicker outriggers as well as reattempt suspension.

2 minutes ago, suffocation said:

It was probably in the video but I must've missed it - how much did you gear the drive motors down? And were you running the BuWizz on slow, normal or fast? (Or ludicrous, if they were 2.0 units).

I reckon that if you scale the model down to fit the Claas wheels better, the whole model'll be a lot more manageable and you can turn what is already a very good crane into a masterpiece.

Just the differential reduction + 1:3 in portal hubs. In the video I used fast mode. On ludicrous it sometimes starts to move in small spikes and that does not look natural. Fast was optimal.

10 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Nice crane. Probably wouldn’t identify it with Liebherr, because those tend to have closely packed and bulky proportions. Yours is quite spread out lengthwise. That being said, the proportions give it a Russian crane truck appearance which I find quite funky and cool, and worth pursuing. If you do that you could tackle fewer but thicker outriggers as well as reattempt suspension.

Got a bunch of ideas for v2 already, will definitely try to do that.

I think that @sariel is correct.

Just call it 'my mobile crane' or [instert name] mobile crane

Its looks don't match the original. Big deal. Take what's good, scrap the rest, build new one. Iterating a design is normal process of creation, and critique during iterations only helps making next one better.
 

2 hours ago, Jerac said:

Its looks don't match the original. Big deal. Take what's good, scrap the rest, build new one. Iterating a design is normal process of creation, and critique during iterations only helps making next one better.
 

Totally agree. The more argument critics - the better the next MOC could be. But it's important here to be very loyal and admit not only bad sides, but also good designed sides or features of the MOC.

I made it longer than the original since I wanted to place the XLs right above the differentials, servo was placed right next to the XL on the same level so there was no need to use steering links and the weight was somehow redistibuted. And right next to it there was the perfect spot for PF L powering outriggers right in the middle of 5x7 frames. Which could have been easily placed in the back, but that would require extending the crane again. Another spot was on the right side (symmetrical to the train BB position) but I quickly refused to place it there since the outrigger driving line was heavily extended, it was somewhat close to 60 studs equivalent in axles not counting the gears. Of course that position was no good too because outriggers on the right and the left sides of the crane would start desynchronizing after 1-2 uses just because right gears were closer than the left ones. So the logical choice was to put it in the center to avoid all that - if I didn't want to shovel through half of the chassis, which I didn't wanted. I could have also used say 2 motors but the above mentioned central position was so ideal it seemed to me, just couldn't have done it the other way. Just when you try something and it doesn't work and then here it is, ideal option in almost every way. It should be also mentioned here, that outriggers were kind of a problem to me, since I didn't plan them in the construction of chassis at the beginning, my big mistake which led to the outriggers as you see them.

As it was clear how long the crane would be, it was no small model and it wasn't planned to be so I just decided to see how it evolves from there. And that's how.

Edited August 27, 20186 yr by gate