| |
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
|
|
| |
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, 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.
|
|
|
