| |
In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
| |
Thanks, I’m pretty sure that was what I was trying to say when I got
everyone so angry.
|
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I wasn’t angry. Every time this subject
comes up, I keep hoping to see some more specific instances where the old-style
TECHNIC works better, but all I ever see is “everything”. It’s clearly not
true, or there wouldn’t be any advocates for stud-free construction.
| |
You said it a lot better though.
|
Not really, but he did say it a lot “bigger”. It’s basically the same old rant
that pops up every few months, where the only thing that changes is the set
numbers. I want to see someone cite an instance where a single studded TECHNIC
brick would be more effective than a single stud-free TECHNIC liftarm. Kevin
has stated many times that liftarms work better for robotics because of weight
and clearance issues, and I’ve found them to be much more versatile for
sculpture, like Kiki from
Sluggy Freelance.
| |
I was asking what now defines Lego.
|
The experience, as has always been the case.
| |
Current lego doesn’t have to have studs or tubes in entire models, and t
can still be called Lego.
|
Look at all of the changes that have happened to the 2x4 brick over the years.
They changed the material from CA to ABS, they added tubes to the inside for
better grip, more recently they’ve added gussets for strength and vertical
ridges for even better grip, and now they’re adding horizontal ridges so TECHNIC
pin flanges can clip into the undersides. Older blocky shapes are making way
for lots of curved slopes and wedge shapes.
| |
I did say later after everyone started complaining about my viewpoint that
8455 is possibly best how it is, but I suppose you’re right, the reason I
thought it wouldn’t work was due to size, rather than accepting the fact
that bigger might be better.
|
“Better” is a very subjective term. Better for you doesn’t mean better for
everyone. Being able to make the same basic model in a smaller scale means it
can be sold at a lower price point, and that means it can sell more units.
Small sets are the money-makers, and larger sets are most useful as inspiration
for kids who can’t afford to buy them individually, but can build up a
collection large enough to emulate them over time. They still need to cover
their own development costs, though, and in today’s market that means they need
to be more affordable to warrant the shelf space to display them. Wal-Mart even
stopped stocking any sets that cost over $50 because they’ve got such slow
turnaround that they might as well be display items instead of salable product.
| |
A bit off my current tangent, who can honestly say the one on the left looks
better?
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
|
It looks a lot less chunky, and the TECHNIC panels do a good job of emulating
the curvy front ends of many older dune buggies, and the liftarms more
accurately represent the round tubestock used for frames than TECHNIC bricks do.
I don’t really see myself buying either as a set just because I don’t have a
huge interest in building dune buggies, but I’d be much more likely to buy the
one on the left for spare parts.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
| |
Not really, but he did say it a lot “bigger”. It’s basically the same old
rant that pops up every few months, where the only thing that changes is the
set numbers. I want to see someone cite an instance where a single studded
TECHNIC brick would be more effective than a single stud-free TECHNIC
liftarm.parts.
|
How about whenever you try to use Technic parts in a “non Technic” model?
Something like my
theatre, for example?
Stud-free is great for some things like
Dan Siskind’s bascule
bridge (on the right), but for most stuff I’d prefer Technic bricks with studs.
Besides it’s all supposed to be part of a “system”, right? Without some studded
Technic bricks it’s hard to connect to regular bricks!
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
| |
Purple Dave wrote:
> Not really, but he did say it a lot "bigger". It's basically the same old rant
> that pops up every few months, where the only thing that changes is the set
> numbers.
I'm biased basic brick user. You're biased Bionicle user.
> I want to see someone cite an instance where a single studded TECHNIC
> brick would be more effective than a single stud-free TECHNIC liftarm.
Stud free Technic liftarm is {almost} useless when you want to use other
(non-Technic) studded parts.
Technic bricks with plates make better frames for stuff like cars.
Usage of Technic bricks has almost flat learning curve. You just use
them as another brick, and learn few tricks like inserting 2 plates and
cross-strenghtening with other beam (even studless, you know).
Usage of studless beams in studless-only creation is anything but
intuitive. You've got to use _complete_ different way of building
(instead of bottom-to-top you must use inside-to-outside) and master
tens of funny new elements just to achieve something what would take you
1 minute of playing with plates and bricks.
Simply put, I really don't know what would make me build something like
the new Tow Truck (using studless bricks) when I can easily build
something like 8479 (using studded bricks).
Tell me why do you think that the studless bricks in the Tow Truck are
more effective then the studded bricks in the 8479. For me they clearly
aren't.
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
http://www.kostky.org
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
| |
I keep hoping to see some more specific instances where the
old-style TECHNIC works better,
|
| |
| |
A bit off my current tangent, who can honestly say the one on the left looks
better?
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
|
|
Personally I prefer the stud-free version of this model, but I prefer the
studded beams from the standpoint of a non-Technic builder. Studded technic
beams are a great SNOT element in normal bricks-and-plates construction, either
by sticking the studs of a brick into the holes of the beam to get a 90 degree
orientation, by using half pins to get 90 degrees pointing the other way, by
sticking two studded beams side by side with pins but with the studs pointing in
opposite directions to get 180 degree orientation, or by using a pin to pivot 2
beams 1 against another to get about any angle orientation, or to make something
that can swing (e.g. a drawbridge etc). Studless beams are fine for some
applications, but for me they get tossed in my bin of very-rarely-used parts.
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
How about whenever you try to use Technic parts in a “non Technic” model?
|
I guess I should have been more specific and restricted my request to just
TECHNIC models. As I’ve said before, I use TECHNIC bricks quite a bit when I
want TECHNIC functions in a non-TECHNIC MOC, but I rarely use them instead of
liftarms in a fully TECHNIC MOC. TLC’s official products seem to be following
the same pattern these days, with TECHNIC bricks found in sets like the Inventor
and Designer series, and even in the 4+ series, but not in the more advanced
TECHNIC line.
| |
Besides it’s all supposed to be part of a “system”, right? Without some
studded Technic bricks it’s hard to connect to regular bricks!
|
Hard, but not impossible. If you look at a transparent 1x brick, you’ll notice
little ridges formed into the interior to provide gripping surfaces for the
flange of a TECHNIC pin, round 2x2 and 4x4 bricks and cones have axle holes, and
there’s always the stud-pin.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
Besides it’s all supposed to be part of a “system”, right? Without some
studded Technic bricks it’s hard to connect to regular bricks!
|
Bam! There’s my objection, I think. Lego used to be more of a system, and it’s
gradually turning into several different systems. It’s not that they’re not
compaitable, it’s that they’re LESS compatible, or less related. Studded beams,
while less useful in practical technical applications (due to being off-center
top to bottom, having a non-smooth surface on the top, allowing less clearance,
having square corners), are less like the rest of Lego toys. It’s hard to see
nowadays that a technic set has much in common whatsoever with, say, a Harry
Potter set, besides the little red logo in the corner.
Technic sets nowadays are more based on the peg/axle-and-hole system, rather
than the stud-and-tube system of yesteryear. It’s not that you can’t cross over,
and it’s not that each system isn’t valuable in its own right, but it’s changed.
And modern technic sets allow for less crossover, being without studs.
Personally, not being much of a technic builder myself, technic still appealed
to me back when it had studded beams (not as much as ‘System’ sets, mind you,
but still appealed). There were pieces I could use, and even lots of non-technic
pieces included. Now it’s diverged so that I view most technic sets as nearly
completely uninteresting. My guess is, however, that for people who’ve always
been technic builders, they’re likely indifferent, or if anything, prefer the
new system, since it’s more practical. To each his own, I suppose, though I will
still lament the loss of studded-beam-intensive sets...
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
| |
I’m biased basic brick user. You’re biased Bionicle user.
|
Not true. I’ve been collecting since the days of the maxifigs and
non-articulated minifigs. Yes, I’ve found a new degree of freedom in the
BIONICLE series that wasn’t present before, but I do still build with basic
bricks. I’ve just never done been a big fan of building old-style TECHNIC
models, which is why my earliest TECHNIC set got mixed in with my Yellow Castle
parts.
| |
Stud free Technic liftarm is almost useless when you want to use other
(non-Technic) studded parts.
|
The newer TECHNIC sets get around that problem by not using non-TECHNIC parts.
If there aren’t any basic bricks in the set, there’s no reason to include
TECHNIC bricks to interface with them for that set. And while a few sets are
released with the specific intent of directly interacting with one or more other
assembled sets (the three Jabba sets, the various Hogwarts sets, and the
Exo-Toa/Tahu), they’re still designed as stand-alone sets. If a specific part
isn’t included in the set, the set isn’t designed with that specific piece in
mind. In general the TECHNIC system is compatible with the basic System bricks,
just like in general the basic bricks are compatible with the DUPLO system.
| |
Technic bricks with plates make better frames for stuff like cars.
|
They make great square frames, but very few cars these days are made in such a
box-like style. There’s the Hummer (which was designed as a very utilitarian
military vehicle), the Landrover, and a few other SUV-wannabes, but even pickup
trucks and police cars are getting more curvy.
| |
Usage of Technic bricks has almost flat learning curve. You just use
them as another brick, and learn few tricks like inserting 2 plates and
cross-strenghtening with other beam (even studless, you know).
|
So, to turn your argument on its ear, you’re complaining that the modern TECHNIC
system is too advanced compared to the old-style TECHNIC/System meld, in spite
of the fact that kids have made BIONICLE the top selling theme, and the Racers
theme is another one of the biggest sellers with the younger crowd, while the
Inventor series hasn’t seen any new sets in 2004.
| |
Usage of studless beams in studless-only creation is anything but
intuitive. You’ve got to use complete different way of building
(instead of bottom-to-top you must use inside-to-outside) and master
tens of funny new elements just to achieve something what would take you
1 minute of playing with plates and bricks.
|
As someone who often builds in weird patterns like both-ends-to-middle (which I
did with my
SpeeToa Bike), I find the stud-free design to be less restrictive, as I can
change orientations many times in a very small space. I also find myself
wanting certain parts only to see them released later on (specifically, I
desperately wanted 1x2 flat liftarms two months before they first shipped, and
the new +oo perpendicular axle joiner offers functionality that I’ve been
wanting for a very long time). To me, the sheer variety of parts is what makes
it worth using. The biggest limitation of stud-free TECHNIC is that they’re
still in the middle of building up the basic part catalog, but the more they use
those parts, the more quickly they’ll end up seeing a need to fill it out.
| |
Simply put, I really don’t know what would make me build something like
the new Tow Truck (using studless bricks) when I can easily build
something like 8479 (using studded bricks).
|
I’m noticing quite a few stud-free liftarms and such in that 8479, especially
for the moving parts. Are you sure you want to use that as your example?
| |
Tell me why do you think that the studless bricks in the Tow Truck are
more effective then the studded bricks in the 8479. For me they clearly
aren’t.
|
The blue tow truck? Have you actually tried it out, or are you just going by
visual impression? I got to play around with it at Toy Fair, and I didn’t
notice any wobbliness. It’s also 1/4 of the price, and slips under the $50
hurdle that seems to heavily influence which sets can be found in many stores.
If stores won’t buy them, they can’t afford to dump as much money into producing
them. The Rebel Blockade Runner and ISD models were released as S@H exclusives
because they honestly didn’t think they’d sell well enough to be worth
marketting to stores. In this day and age, if they did make old-style TECHNIC
sets, the medium/large ones would probably all have to be S@H exclusives, which
really cuts into how much value there is in producing an old-style sub-group in
the first place.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
| |
My guess is, however, that for people who’ve always been technic builders,
they’re likely indifferent, or if anything, prefer the new system, since
it’s more practical.
|
I think the general view expressed so far suggests that many long-term TECHNIC
builders are still firmly married to the studded system, that many people who
have gone heavily into Mindstorms have found reasons to cross over, and kids are
skipping over System and going straight into stud-free TECHNIC.
|
|
| |
Purple Dave wrote:
> > Stud free Technic liftarm is {almost} useless when you want to use other
> > (non-Technic) studded parts.
>
> The newer TECHNIC sets get around that problem by not using non-TECHNIC parts.
> If there aren't any basic bricks in the set, there's no reason to include
> TECHNIC bricks to interface with them for that set. And while a few sets are
> released with the specific intent of directly interacting with one or more other
> assembled sets (the three Jabba sets, the various Hogwarts sets, and the
> Exo-Toa/Tahu), they're still designed as stand-alone sets. If a specific part
> isn't included in the set, the set isn't designed with that specific piece in
> mind. In general the TECHNIC system is compatible with the basic System bricks,
> just like in general the basic bricks are compatible with the DUPLO system.
Yes, and that's my whole point. Technic _was_ part of the System and
it's not anymore. It's more Znap than System and that's what I (and
probably some others) don't like.
> So, to turn your argument on its ear, you're complaining that the modern TECHNIC
> system is too advanced compared to the old-style TECHNIC/System meld
You misread what I wrote. Modern Technic is cumbersome, not advanced in
my eyes.
> in spite
> of the fact that kids have made BIONICLE the top selling theme, and the Racers
> theme is another one of the biggest sellers with the younger crowd, while the
> Inventor series hasn't seen any new sets in 2004.
Don't you want to pretend that primitive Bionicle / Racers sets have
something in common with advanced Technic build? Except for 3 large
formulas (at least 2 of them use studded) there's nothing that backs
your arguments here.
Bionicle is simply stuff for masses. Questioning the quality by quantity
is stupid.
> I'm noticing quite a few stud-free liftarms and such in that 8479, especially
> for the moving parts. Are you sure you want to use that as your example?
Yes. I wrote that multiple times - I have nothing against studless
beams, but I don't like studless sets. Look at its chassis. Look at all
the functionality. You're simply not going to mimic that in studless
(not to mention there are not yet the studless motors).
> The blue tow truck? Have you actually tried it out, or are you just going by
> visual impression?
I'm not going to buy it or even try it, it's ugly. Technic fairings are
pathetic and completely unusable parts.
> If stores won't buy them, they can't afford to dump as much money into producing
> them. The Rebel Blockade Runner and ISD models were released as S@H exclusives
> because they honestly didn't think they'd sell well enough to be worth
> marketting to stores. In this day and age, if they did make old-style TECHNIC
> sets, the medium/large ones would probably all have to be S@H exclusives, which
> really cuts into how much value there is in producing an old-style sub-group in
> the first place.
I'm not getting your argument here. There are giving us worse models
with less functionality. It's no wonder they're cheaper. If they wanted
even cheaper models, they shouldn't switch the Technic->Znap2 (ie New
Technic) system at all.
8479 was $164 in 1997 (1263 parts, large, lots of functions). 8455 was
$100 in 2003 (703 parts, small, wiggly, less functions)
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
http://www.kostky.org
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
|
|
|
