Tuesday, January 11, 2011

TBs TechChallenge, 2010 - Reverse 8066 - The results

...........................................................................................


We have now evaluated all the entries submitted to the 2nd TBs TechREVERSE Challenge against the official building instructions from TLG's 8066 Off-Roader, accounted the mismatches and reviewed everything once more. It's about time to publish the results.

So, at first and for those contestants who may also want to check their own submissions, here is the link to download the official instructions for the 8066 (it includes also the parts list in the end).

This time we got 13 valid participations into contest (a very significant increase if compared to the previous TechREVERSE Challenge edition).
As previously announced TBs got a set prizes to distribute among those who achieved the best guesses on how to build the model under contest. One 8069 Backhoe for the winner, and four 8066s for the subsequent classifications. Meaning this that all those who have decided to participate, had a very significant chance to win one of the prizes.


I've already received the prizes to distribute, a few weeks ago and should be sending them out soon. Meanwhile you may see them in the photo below.
Realize on the signature at each box from the respective Designer of each set (8066 by Michael Jeppesen and 8069 by Jeppe Juul Jensen). Hope it is a detail of your pleasure.



The results were evaluated comparing the LDraw models sent by the contestants, with each step in the official building instructions booklet.
Like in the previous edition, it was done through a manual comparation from the last step at the building instructions and going backwards until the first step, while taking annotations from the differences found at each step at the same time.
Though there are still several opportunities to improve the method used to count mismatches. Something to look, at further editions of the TechREVERSE Challenge.

The 8066 model itself revealed to be a "little bastard", as someone already called it. Apparently simple, it hides several details very difficult or almost impossible to guess successfully, without doing some extrapolation.
This automatically lead us into an high probability of finding several color mismatches. Giving another example, there were only a few realizing on the tail lights (despite visible from the box art) and almost no one guessed about the 3/4 Technic pins in the rear underside, to limit the suspension travel course - Although a mistake also committed by the winner of this Challenge.
The stuff under the bonnet and pin friction/frictionless mistakes, were also the reason for many other counted mismatches...

Unlike in the previous Challenge, all the required parts to model the 8066 were available from the official LDraw library and there was no need to model flex parts with LSynth, all these turning the Challenge a bit easier to handle, this time.

We counted mismatches for occurrences like: wrong parts or sub-parts; extra or missing parts; misplacements or misalignments and color mismatches. However the use of Old Grays were not considered for the mismatches count, for historical reasons, even on MLCad interface and because not everyone is aware of the difference.
There were also a few cases where the mismatch count was not taken to the final number (always not impacting the classification for the prizes), for several reasons: difficulty to achieve a consistent mismatch count according to the defined criteria, after a certain level of deviation from the official model; submissions with serious and obvious issues, resulting from file format conversions across different tools (LDD, MLCad).

You may find the info about all the mismatches, details and results at these files [XLS, PDF].


And now I must say that the winning submission is... the one from Nathanaël Kuipers, again.



Nathanaël scored some extra mismatches (7) than in his previous TechREVERSE participation (1), but it was still enough to win this Challenge 1st prize. One Backhoe (8069) from the first boxes getting out of the production line and signed by the respective LEGO Designer (Jeppe Juul Jensen).

For the next four prizes we have selected the Challenge entries with fewer mismatches. In the event of a tie, it was considered the order of submission into the competition. It was the case used to determine who is going to receive the last prize to assign (Jovel vs Blakbird).

So, the four 8066 set boxes, are going to:
  •   9 mismatches - Daniel Gould, UK
  • 11 mismatches - Han Crielaard (Designer-Han), NL
  • 13 mismatches - Philippe Hurbain (Philo), FR - Despite he completely missed the entire windshield (5 mismatches in a row)
  • 14 mismatches - John Vlemmix (Jovel), NL

From left to right, their renders in the same order.



Congratulations to everyone and thanks for participating into this 2nd TBs Challenge!

Also, I'd like to thanks all those who made this Challenge possible:
  • All involved in fruitful discussions about the evaluation methods and still another LDraw tutorial, targeting the needs from those aiming to take part in this Challenge.
  • The TLG Technic team, for the support and for providing the nice prizes.
  • And finally of course, all those who were engaged with this Challenge, either by sending their submissions or the enthusiasm joining the initiative by leaving their comments to the respective posts.


Hopefully we can repeat it again, with some 2012 model....




The prizes shipping costs are sponsored by TBs , with the revenue generated from the LEGO ads. Please do not forget to help us supporting these costs, whenever you do your LEGO purchases from LEGOshop.com, accessing the LEGO online shop from the ads displayed in this blog.



PS: I'll hold shipping the prizes for one week, from the date of this post, just in case someone wishes to complain about the assessment of their mismatches.

25 comments:

Philo said...

Really funny! I was so concentrating on these pesky hidden details that I totally forgot to add the windscreen, already present in my mind.

Congratulations to all participants, as it was a tough challenge, and many thanks to TBs team for setting up this competition!

Nathanael said...

Funny that you mention that, Philo. I had exactly the same; concentrating so hard on the hidden details that I totally overlooked the rear lights! Doh! I felt so stupid, but now I'm glad to read that I was not the only one making these errors. :)

Still I feel very fortunate that my entry was enough to claim first price. It was definitely a close call this time! Well done to everyone and my gratitude towards LEGO and TechnicBricks for their support to make this challenge possible. It was again great fun to participate.

xSergio74 said...

Hi,
next time I will participate the competition: it is possible to create models with SR 3D Builder?

Junkstyle Gio said...

Congrats to all the winners. And of course also to the rest of the participants.
You've all did a great job and had as much a fun time building the 8066 model as I did when I got it..

Luc2000 said...

Congratulations to all winners! I forgot the rear lights too, but I think I made a way more stupid mistake: the headlights. How many mistakes did I make? If 15, I hate myself, because minus the headlights, there would be 13 mistakes, which would be 5 place.

Oh wait. I completely missed the .XLS file. 16 mistakes? At least it's better than expected. The next time I'll build a bit faster.

Jetro said...

As Blakbird explained in a comment to the announcement of this challenge, you can quiet easily adapt a file made with SR 3D to be easily readeable by MLCad.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to all particpants !

Actually, the model to reproduce was indeed very hard (much more than I expected when I saw the first picture of the set, last year).

Don't know what Conchas is gonna answer to Sergio. But using SR 3D would be logical IMO. After all, it is definitely the best Lego soft ever ; much more powerful than MLCAD ! (at least for Technic)

Anio

Cyrus said...

Congratulations to all who participated! Thank you TBs for setting up this competition! It was fun!

I too forgot to put the rear lights! But I also forgot to put the STEERING WHEEL!!! I can't believe I forgot that! You can drive without lights BUT YOU CAN'T DRIVE WITHOUT A STEERING WHEEL! Now I feel stupid. ;)

Scott said...

Congrats everybody! Looking forward to the next Challenge. Next time I think I'll try to get a good night's sleep between finishing my submission and actually submitting it. So as to avoid that "D'oh!" moment, when with a fresh look, a stupid mistake becomes obvious but can no longer be fixed...

Designer-Han said...

Thanks to TechnicBricks and TLC to conduct this challenge.
All the winners, congratulations.
I feel very lucky with the 3rd place, because I totally forgot to distinguish between the pins frictionless and pins with slots. It turned out not to dramatic, only 3 mistakes for the wrong pins. Seams that I'm so used to design building instructions on electronic paper, whereof I focus on the colors (black or LBG) instead of the correct part. ;-)
Next year hopefully again a new challenge!
Kind regards, Han (Design-Han)

Conchas said...

@xSergio74, Anio


At first, sorry for the delayed answer. Though days!...


as I've explained in the first posts about the Challenges, I see good restrictions to restrict the usage of other tools than MLCad.
On the other way, I'd like we could use them also. I meant LDD and SR 3D.

I've even asked for this discussion, but no one took the challenge. :)

It was not the case of this year with 8066, but new models could always bring new parts.
If it is the case, it is very unlikely that we can get them for LDD, making it out of usage.

For SR 3D I think it uses also the LDraw library, so we won't have this problem, but are there any others which may arise???

It is a pity that LDD won't be an option, but even if it was we would then become limited to the renders quality that participants would be able to produce.
The renders diversity and quality is also a nice aspect of the contest, so that they won't all look the same.

Finally it is much more convenient to use one single tool to check all the entries mismatches, then using two or three tools for doing it. :P


Fortunately I see there is one way for conversion between MLCad and SR 3D, and maybe no the disadvantages that I'm afraid.


Maybe you can start discussing this, and can "convince" us that SR 3D is also a viable option (won't call it an alternative) for the TBs TechREVERSE Challenge.
BTW if someone have built the 8066 with SR 3D, he could send the file to me, so that I can feel the real difference of making the mismatches evaluation with MLCad and MLDraw tools.



There are simple things possible to be done with MLCad, that I still can't do with SR 3D. But I can easily acccept that it could be my fault and a result of short practicing.
For instance rotation of non hinged parts, in steps of 1º or similar.
I must confess to have some difficulties with the interface, but as with everything, it is something that must be practiced.

Conchas said...

@xSergio74, Anio



At first, sorry for the delayed answer. Though days!...


as I've explained in the first posts about the Challenges, I see good restrictions to restrict the usage of other tools than MLCad.
On the other way, I'd like we could use thme also. I mean LDD and SR 3D.

I've even asked for this discussion, but no one took the challenge. :)

It was not the case of this year with 8066, but new models could always bring new parts.
If it is the case, it is very unlikely that we can get them for LDD, making it out of usage.

For SR 3D I think it uses also the LDraw library, so we won't have this problem, but are there any others which may arise???

It is a pitty that LDD won't be an option, but even if it was we would then become limited to the renders quality that participants would be able to produce.
The renders diversity and quality is also a nice aspect of the contest, so that they won't all look the same.

Finally it is much more convenient to use one single tool to check all the entries mismatches, then using two or three tools for doing it. :P

Conchas said...

(cont.)

Fortunately I see there is one way for conversiton between MLCad and SR 3D, and maybe no the disadvantges that I'm affraid.


Maybe you can start discussing this, and convice us that SR 3D is also viable option (won't call it an alternative) for the TBs TechREVERSE Challenge.
BTW if someone built the 8066 with SR 3D, he could send it to me, so that I can feel the real difference of making the mismatches evaluation with MLCad, or MLDraw.



There are simple things possible to be done with MLCad, that I still can't do with SR 3D. But I can easily acccept that it could be my fault and a result of short practicing.
For instance rotation of non hinged parts, in steps of 1º or similar.
I must confess to have some difficulties with the interface, but as with everything, it is something that must be practiced.

xSergio74 said...

@Conchas
Hi,
personally I believe that building using SR3DBuilder is going to make things easyer for most builder due to its capabilities of autosnap and autoconnect of parts. Probably making non sense to test for part positioning since the part is "connected" to the right connection or is totally missplaced or missed.

It could also be a useful tool for testing part positioning since it is capable to select the whole model if all parts are connected each other, making this kind of test by far much more fast than using MLCad.

Anyway you can always open models created with SR3D by using MLCad. Actually you only loose flex parts and belts since they are created on the fly by the application. The same issue actually happens if you want to raytrace the model using pov-ray since triangle definition for flex and belt are not stored in the model.

Coming to your problem(s):
to rotate a part by small steps (0.5 degrees) hold down Shift key while pressing rotation kesy on the keyboard.
Let me know your difficult in using the application: I will try to help you!

Byes

Sergio

Jetro said...

@XSergio: the real 'problem' is using different tools to evaluate things that ned to be 'the same'. Can SR3D correctly open files that have been generated with MLCad? Can MLCad always open files generated with SR 3D (provided the necessary parts are installed?
If so SR3D would be the perfect candidate for inclusion in the next challenge. If not... maybe you can make sure it works.

xSergio74 said...

@Jetro
As told in my previous post, actually limitation are belt and flex parts when generated by my application will not be saved in a format compatible with MLCad.

The inverse should work correctly since MLCad generates the whole set of triangles inside the model itself.

Anyway you and me need to make some exhaustive tests to ensure that.
Actually SR3DB evolves in adding additional animation capabilities, but I think (I'm not sure!) that almost any part could be correctly loaded and assembled in a model.

Conchas said...

That would very interesting, if we arrange some tests to see whether SR3D can open MLCad models with flexible parts, and how they are then handled.

I'm in favor of using SR3D if we find no significant drawbacks, as I see it more suitable and easier to model for Technic.

We should do however a poll before the contest, to check if this is also the will from our readers.

Also...
- where does SR3D looks for LDraw parts?
- Does it read MLCad.ini?
- Does it looks for several folders, like official and unofficial parts?



@xSergio74

Thanks for the rotation hint!
I had look in the help window, and don't know how, but I have not seen it... It's there! My bad!!

It would be nice to be able to reverse the rotation direction, when you go too much forward. I now you can the use the course steps and then fine steps again, but...
Maybe there is and I'm not seeing it either.


I've just opened some of the 8066 LDraw models submitted into contest, with SR3D and wasn't able to handle one situation.
How can we work with sub-models?
How can I edit them, from the main model?
I can select a sub-model, but the I didn't find how to remove a part in it.
This is very important for the evaluation process.

xSergio74 said...

Hi,

You can define the folder SR3DB is going to get part definition from and it uses near the same folder structure used by MLCad

In addiction, it uses a specific folder, as recommended by lDraw, called c:\lDraw\Unofficial to store unofficial parts definition. You can set MLCad.ini file to let MLCad do the same.

My application don't cares about MLCad.ini, since it is not MLCad. It manages all issues by inside code, so no needed for minifigs definitions, folder, lSynth...

About rotations problems: Using the mouse you can rotate your selection only in the arrows directions, but using keyboard keys (LJ-IM-ON) you can rotate in both directions and, holding the CTRL or Shift, by the same steps.

About submodel, assign each submodel to a group, so you can easily show or hide them one by one. Notice that this functionality has not been deeply tested and may crash the application.

One more thing: what about continue this discussion on a better place (like a forum for instance)?

Conchas said...

@xSergio74

Yes, I see you use the ldraw folder by default. However was not sure if you used the same 'parts' and 'unofficial' folders.
However recently I experienced some problems using the 'unofficial' folder, and learned from Philo, why it is not always the best option to use a folder like 'unofficial' to store yet unreleased parts.
Lets say there are advantages and disadvantages...


I see the need to assign each sub-model into a group, to properly handle it at SR3D, as problem.
For instance all the submissions I've received to the Challenge that use sub-models, doesn't seem to have them assigned into groups.
I also found cases where the sub-models are recognized by SR3D and others not and parts seen individually.

This raises some issues, if we intend to use SR3D as the reference tool for further TechREVERSE Challenges.

Extensive tests needed as you mentioned. We can work on that.


Yes, we may continue the discussion at some other place,
- By mail
- At PLUG forum, where you use to announce new SR3D releases - You, I and Jetro have access there. It is just the matter of creating one topic
- At EuroBricks if someone else intends to join the discussion, but I guess it will become a quite restricted discussion.

xSergio74 said...

@Cnchas
I agree with you.
If it is ok for you, PLUG could be the best place.
Just start a new topic and continue from there

Conchas said...

Topic created here.

Nathanael said...

Package already received! That was a very fast delivery! Thanks again TBs and LEGO!! :-)

Han said...

Indeed fast delivery! I received mine yesterday as well, and of course build in directly together with my daughter. Thanks again to TB and Lego and till end of this year!

Philo said...

Got mine today! Looks like French postal service is somewhat slower ;)

Thanks again, TBs and LEGO!!

Daniel Gould said...

I received mine yesterday. Thanks TBs and LEGO!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...



© 2007-2014 TechnicBRICKs
TechnicBRICKs contents may be sporadically updated, if the authors finds further relevant info about a certain post, or content/spell mistakes. Hence please don't be surprised if you find few changes at later visits, relative to a previous read.

TechnicBRICKs often shows other peoples' creations and/or images. We always try to credit the author(s) and link to their main publishing website, and if possible with their name in real life.
Since this is not always possible, we request that if you find something here that is yours or from someone you know, you leave a comment on the respective post and claim the authorship.

TechnicBRICKs is optimized for Firefox 16.0 and 1600x1200 resolution displays or wider.

LEGO® is a trademark of The LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this blog.
LEGO, the LEGO logo, the Brick and Knob configurations, the Minifigure and MINDSTORMS, are registered trademarks of The LEGO Group.
Original LEGO images are copyrighted by The LEGO Group and are used here in accordance with their fair play policy.
You can visit the official LEGO® website at www.LEGO.com.