 | | | | | | |
| |
|
I put a message up on JLUG a few days ago regarding the frustrating direction
TLG seem to be taking with Technic:
http://www.jlug.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2145
Primariliy regarding Blue Axle pins and how the standard colour does not do any
justice to any colour shceme but blue. This matter has been discussed before:
http://news.lugnet.com/technic/?n=15294
pertaining to tan pins and odd length grey axles.
however i think more luggers are seeing colour standardisation to be a bit of a
concern to the future of the hobby.
It is disheartening to know that only certain parts will be produced in standard
colours.
It is disheartening that those standard colours do not compliment most colour
schemes.
It is disheartening to know that some standard parts will be produced in
non-standard colours for non technic kits.
It is disheartening to know that the range of parts to be colour standardised
does not yet seem to have a boundary.
It is disheartening to know that no other theme appears to be standardising.
All this to make building technic simpler so that it can be sold to a younger
audience is great but to quote TLG’s website
http://technic.lego.com/en-US/default.aspxas of 15th of May 2007 TECHNIC
brings you an exciting and challenging construction experience that lets you
create authentic real-life models with lots of working functionalities it seems
like a contradiction. making a challenge simpler ? The challenge seems to be
derived from the instruction manuals not clearly printing a diifference between
black and dark grey parts. The “old days” of Technic had near 40 parts per step,
these days it seems near enough to 1 part per step. Bionicle may have something
to do with it but this discussion should not involve one of the most favourable
and proffitable themes TLG run.
Instead this discussion should be about making technic building simpler yet more
challenging. I think a few lines need to be drawn here.
Which age exactly is TLG going to market Technic into the future ?
Which parts are going to be standardised ?
Which parts are not ?
What colours will be considered standard ?
It seems this theme has developed a huge fan base
that is being left behind as TLG neglect to mention their future objectives.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Stump Dunn wrote:
| |
however i think more luggers are seeing colour standardisation to be a bit
of a concern to the future of the hobby.
|
Hey, I just thought of something. Currently, there’s some color-standardization
in Technic sets- For example 15L liftarms will be dark bley, and 11L ones are
black.
Does this mean that 15L liftarms will *always* be the same color? Or just within
one set? I don’t mind if it’s all in one set- but the idea that certain parts
will only ever be available in certain colors is a bit disturbing.
Gears, I don’t mind- I think it’s kinda fun that they will be in other colors.
And there’s plenty of grey ones available on BL and in our plano boxes, there’s
no shortage.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
Hey, I just thought of something. Currently, there’s some
color-standardization in Technic sets- For example 15L liftarms will be dark
bley, and 11L ones are black.
Does this mean that 15L liftarms will *always* be the same color? Or just
within one set? I don’t mind if it’s all in one set- but the idea that
certain parts will only ever be available in certain colors is a bit
disturbing.
|
Tim i think you may have missed something and i offer my oppologies, being
australian i find it very difficult to explain the obvious and my use of the
english language is not as good as it could be. That said my use of the language
may not be as subtle as it could be.
I still have not heard why certain parts will be produced in standard colours. I
don’t think it is feasibly making construction simpler ?
I would love to know why blue was chosen over dark grey as blue does not
compliment most colour schemes.
Why is it that the new star-wars y-wing has white axles yet technic kits adhere
to the standard and we only have black ones ?. It seems the rules are bent for
other themes.
Why does the old axle joiner need to be standardised ? for that matter why does
any part need to be standardised ?
Why is it that no other theme differentiates similar (yet obviously different)
parts by colour. Perhaps the reason TLG have not produced a “big-ben” wheel is
because it would only be made in blue ?
Being Australian i have to appreciate the irony of the situation but that does
not subtract from my loathing of double standards.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
--snip--
| |
Why is it that no other theme differentiates similar (yet obviously
different) parts by colour. Perhaps the reason TLG have not produced a
“big-ben” wheel is because it would only be made in blue ?
|
Actually all models (and often themes) do to some degree. Try to find a modern
set with the same colour used for horizontal and vertical clips.
| |
Being Australian i have to appreciate the irony of the situation but that
does not subtract from my loathing of double standards.
Steve
|
Presumably that explains why the Liberals are still in.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Stump Dunn wrote:
> I still have not heard why certain parts will be produced
> in standard colours. I don't think it is feasibly making
> construction simpler ?
Actualy, I suspect that *is* part of it. If I think of Technic as about
function, not form (or at least making function primary), it makes sense. The
transmission schematics my father worked on, and the rocket schematics I poured
over as a kid, were very often color coded so that things would be
understandable at a glance. Often when I built a mechanism for documentation, I
*try* to use contrasting colors, so that all the fiddly little details stand out
in a picture for instance. If I take a picture of a robot and find a trace of a
grey axle ticking out, I at least know it's of odd length, which can be a lot of
help in "decoding" what I'm looking at.
Another reason that I actually like the color coding is sorting. Remember the
"sort by type first, not color" idea? I can mix axles if I want and yet find
what I need *MUCH* quicker, and this should work for other parts (especially
pins) as well. Yep, I have mine all sorted out and this is not (at this point) a
really major impact on me... but that's probably not true for folks with smaller
or more poorly sorted collections.
Yeah, this is lousy if you are trying for a specific look or color combination
on your models... like the Y-wing, where form is more important than function,
or the odd fusion of form and function that is Model Team. But for "true
Technic", yes, I can see this making a lot of sense. Makes it easier for the
customer, more informative in the model, and *perhaps* (very slightly?) reduces
the number of different colors of certain parts that you have to stock (reduces
costs).
> I would love to know why blue was chosen over dark grey
> as blue does not compliment most colour schemes.
It may have been for exactly that reason - they were *looking* for a
high-contrast color with the existing color schemes (much like red 2L axles) so
those very small parts would stand out from the parts pile.
> It seems the rules are bent for other themes.
Huh. From my perspective, it would seem the rules are based on the goals of the
theme. I don't think of this as double standards, as much as I see it as coming
from different design goals for different themes.
> Why does the old axle joiner need to be standardised ?
> for that matter why does any part need to be standardised ?
That I don't know (particularly since the tranmission driving ring just came out
recently after a reasaonbly long absence in the Technic motor kits... and those
need the old axle joiners, correct?).
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Actualy, I suspect that *is* part of it. If I think of Technic as about
> function, not form (or at least making function primary), it makes sense.
Sure, if im building a conceptual MOC, i'll use any colour then when i happy
with the function, i'll rebuild it in the colour i want till im happy with the
form. It's when i've finnished the MOC and its spotted with dots of blue or
several different coloured axles is when i get frustrated
> If I take a picture of a robot and find a trace of a
> grey axle ticking out, I at least know it's of odd length, which can be a lot of
> help in "decoding" what I'm looking at.
>
> Another reason that I actually like the color coding is sorting. Remember the
> "sort by type first, not color" idea? I can mix axles if I want and yet find
> what I need *MUCH* quicker, and this should work for other parts (especially
> pins) as well. Yep, I have mine all sorted out and this is not (at this point) a
> really major impact on me... but that's probably not true for folks with smaller
> or more poorly sorted collections.
Ha, i was building the other night and dipped into my 7M axle bucket and took
out an 8M light grey that i had sorted incorrectly.
I had to check my 6s and 8s as i was missing a black 7 ! LOL.
>
> Yeah, this is lousy if you are trying for a specific look or color combination
> on your models... like the Y-wing, where form is more important than function,
> or the odd fusion of form and function that is Model Team. But for "true
> Technic", yes, I can see this making a lot of sense. Makes it easier for the
> customer, more informative in the model, and *perhaps* (very slightly?) reduces
> the number of different colors of certain parts that you have to stock (reduces
> costs).
True, some parts need to be standardised, and in my view some do not. I also
believe that some that are standardised could be just as easily identifyable or
producable in a colour that the part was once made in. Finaly, i believe
standardisation does not need to go any further.
>
> > I would love to know why blue was chosen over dark grey
> > as blue does not compliment most colour schemes.
>
> It may have been for exactly that reason - they were *looking* for a
> high-contrast color with the existing color schemes (much like red 2L axles) so
> those very small parts would stand out from the parts pile.
I think a compromise needs to be found. Yes make it stand out in the pile, but
dont make it stand out on the kit. A neutral colour would be great even if it
was blueish :o)
>
> > It seems the rules are bent for other themes.
>
> Huh. From my perspective, it would seem the rules are based on the goals of the
> theme. I don't think of this as double standards, as much as I see it as coming
> from different design goals for different themes.
Can you please define the goals for us ? I thought there was just one vision, to
play well ?
>
> > Why does the old axle joiner need to be standardised ?
> > for that matter why does any part need to be standardised ?
>
> That I don't know (particularly since the tranmission driving ring just came out
> recently after a reasaonbly long absence in the Technic motor kits... and those
> need the old axle joiners, correct?).Yes they need axle joiners.
The tans joiners will not be noticable under a now standardised red driving
ring.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Stump Dunn wrote:
> > If I think of Technic as about function, not form...
>
> Sure, if im building a conceptual MOC, i'll use any
> colour then when i happy with the function, i'll rebuild
> it in the colour i want till im happy with the form.
Agreed. Which is when I'd need to go to Bricklink, or hopefully other themes, to
try to get the part I want in the color I want. My point was for the Technic
*theme*, standardized colors to highlight function or make finding small pieces
easier is likely a good design goal. It's *not* what I want when making a
"final" model... but that's not how (I perceive) LEGO is marketing them.
> True, some parts need to be standardised, and in my
> view some do not. I also believe that some that are
> standardised could be just as easily identifyable or
> producable in a colour that the part was once made
> in. Finaly, i believe standardisation does not need
> to go any further.
OK. I really can't argue that you do or do not believe these things. I can make
points explaining why this sort of shift might make good sense from the
standpoint of the company, or might have some logic behind them. That's really
all I was trying to do.
> I think a compromise needs to be found.
I agree a compromise would be nice... kind of like how I'd like LEGO to make all
pieces in all possible colors, and also make them all availible in LEGO Factory
/ on-line PaB. But unless I can make a really good sound argument to the company
that that would increase their profit or be a fundamental aspect of their
mission statement, it's just wishful thinking.
> > From my perspective, it would seem the rules
> > are based on the goals of the theme. I don't
> > think of this as double standards, as much as
> > I see it as coming from different design goals
> > for different themes.
>
> Can you please define the goals for us?
Eegad no - I'm just like you here, on the outside looking in. I have no idea
what the "true" goals are here, any more than you do: I'm just suggesting some
possibilities that seem rational to me.
> I thought there was just one vision, to play
> well ?
If that was all there was to it, then I suspect there would only be one "theme"
as well. That is clearly not the case, (there does appear to be several themes),
so I assume each theme probably has a specific target audience, and a specific
goal in mind: Technic, for instance, would seem to have a goal of building
functional mechanical mechanisms. Model Team seemed to be oriented slightly
differently, combining form and function slightly more. Duplo has very little
functionality at all, but is carefully designed to be easier for small hands to
assemble and enjoy. Those seem, to me, to be slightly different "visions" for
the different product lines.
> > since the transmission driving ring just came out
> > recently... those need the old axle joiners,
> > correct?).
>
> Yes they need axle joiners. The tans joiners will
> not be noticable under a now standardised red driving
> ring.
Well, if that was the only consideration (and I'm sure it's not; as I said, I
don't understand that standardization in particular), great, then the color
doesn't matter in the Technic line, and they can use whatever standard color
they want, making parts sorting easier. Again, it comes down to how you use the
product... and I'm suggesting that it may make sense in a product line oriented
more and more towards function, to color code things. I may not like it... but I
can see how it could make sense.
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Brian Davis wrote:
**Snip!**
| |
Well, if that was the only consideration (and I’m sure it’s not; as I said, I
don’t understand that standardization in particular), great, then the color
doesn’t matter in the Technic line, and they can use whatever standard color
they want, making parts sorting easier. Again, it comes down to how you use
the product... and I’m suggesting that it may make sense in a product line
oriented more and more towards function, to color code things. I may not like
it... but I can see how it could make sense.
|
Hmmm...that’s an interesting thought, and does make a certain amount of
logical sense.
**sighs**
Geeeeeeeez, I hate it when something makes incredible sense like that...!
Play Well and Prosper,
Matthew
“The Brick Detective”
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Stump Dunn wrote:
| |
| |
Hey, I just thought of something. Currently, there’s some
color-standardization in Technic sets- For example 15L liftarms will be dark
bley, and 11L ones are black.
Does this mean that 15L liftarms will *always* be the same color? Or just
within one set? I don’t mind if it’s all in one set- but the idea that
certain parts will only ever be available in certain colors is a bit
disturbing.
|
Tim i think you may have missed something and i offer my oppologies, being
australian i find it very difficult to explain the obvious and my use of the
english language is not as good as it could be. That said my use of the
language may not be as subtle as it could be.
Steve
|
Being as I’m from the US, perhaps my English isn’t as good as it could be... I
was basically going off-topic. I understand your concern about certain parts
being available in certain colors. But here’s my question:
We currently see axle pins in blue. Not black or any other color (the Tan ones
are a different part, that’s why they are a different color). Does Lego intend
to extend this to other, more general parts? Axle joiners are one thing,
liftarms are another. Liftarms are weird and limiting enough without coming only
in certain colors. If (for example) 15L Liftarms will never be produced in any
color besides Dark Bley... that just suxors. I can handle having all of them in
one set being the same color- as long as they can be a different color in some
other set.
Clearer?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.technic, Timothy P. Smith wrote:
SNIP
> We currently see axle pins in blue. Not black or any other color (the Tan
> ones are a different part, that's why they are a different color). Does Lego
> intend to extend this to other, more general parts? Axle joiners are one
> thing, liftarms are another. Liftarms are weird and limiting enough without
> coming only in certain colors. If (for example) 15L Liftarms will never be
> produced in any color besides Dark Bley... that just suxors. I can handle
> having all of them in one set being the same color- as long as they can be a
> different color in some other set.
SNIP
Sorry for replying to post addressed to someone else.
Since TLC invented "studless" Technic, I thought they were trying to make
something like MERKUR (= metal construction toys, see
http://www.merkurtoys.cz/en/index.htm - click "Sets", then "Parts").
As everybody can see, the color palette for painted Merkur parts is very simple
- and it was even simpler, AFAIK from my sets from 80s/90s.
I'm not happy to see TLG "cloning" Merkur. They are two different systems, two
different meanings of realism: With Merkur, one works with real bolts and nuts,
real steel beams etc. With LEGO Technic, the realism can be seen in design:
color matching gear assemblies, color matching support structures etc. The color
coded parts makes any model look totally unrealistic.
Just my 2 halers,
Martin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> With LEGO Technic, the realism can be seen in design:
> color matching gear assemblies, color matching support structures etc. The color
> coded parts makes any model look totally unrealistic.
I see two side to this comment.
I completely agree with your comment about colour coded parts distorting the
realism of a set, however i believe some parts do not need to be produced in all
colours such as gears, hence financial saving could be made.
My issue is that there does not seem to be a clear distinction as to what
constitutes a standard part because i don't understand why a 24 tooth crown
wheel could be mistaken for a double bevel ?
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
We currently see axle pins in blue. Not black or any other color (the Tan
ones are a different part, that’s why they are a different color).
|
On this, i completely agree. They are two extremely similar parts, and I believe
colour standardisation is needed. However, blue and tan ? Frictionless Axle pins
were grey, Axle pins with friction were black. Easily distinguishable, neutral
colours. Why did they need to change ? For the sake of 2M (lets not debate
weather it should be 2M or 2L) axles and friction pins ? 2M axles at one point
in time were produced in white. neutral, easily distinguishable. All that is
needed is for friction axle pins to be made in something like dark grey and the
other three parts could have remained standard. Blue ? wheres the neutrality in
that.
| |
Axle joiners are one
thing, liftarms are another. Liftarms are weird and limiting enough without
coming only in certain colors. If (for example) 15L Liftarms will never be
produced in any color besides Dark Bley... that just suxors. I can handle
having all of them in one set being the same color- as long as they can be a
different color in some other set.
Clearer?
|
Just like some of the parts that are or will be standardised, i feel liftarms do
not need to be standardised. Wheather or not it occurs is another thing.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Stump Dunn wrote:
| |
| |
We currently see axle pins in blue. Not black or any other color (the Tan
ones are a different part, that’s why they are a different color).
|
On this, i completely agree. They are two extremely similar parts, and I
believe colour standardisation is needed. However, blue and tan ?
Frictionless Axle pins were grey, Axle pins with friction were black. Easily
distinguishable, neutral colours. Why did they need to change ? For the sake
of 2M (lets not debate weather it should be 2M or 2L) axles and friction
pins> ? 2M axles at one point in time were produced in white. neutral,
easily distinguishable. All that is needed is for friction axle pins to be
made in something like dark grey and the other three parts could have
remained standard. Blue ? wheres the neutrality in that.
|
Dark Bley looks a lot like black in the instructions, I think that was the
thinking there. And I don’t know if white 2L(*) would be any better than red,
from a standing-out point of view.
So, maybe Light Bley for friction axle pins, and Tan for frictionless would have
worked. I’m sure they were looking for cheap colors, since the parts are so
abundant.
(*) I didn’t realize that was debatable. What’s the M stand for? Maybe we should
take this argument to another venue?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Timothy P. Smith wrote:
| |
So, maybe Light Bley for friction axle pins, and Tan for frictionless would
have worked. I’m sure they were looking for cheap colors, since the parts are
so abundant.
|
I’m guessing they didn’t want to use lt grey because they don’t think kids can
easily distinguish pins and axle pins. “Standard” colour of frictionless pins is
lt grey.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I'm guessing they didn't want to use lt grey because they don't think kids can
> easily distinguish pins and axle pins. "Standard" colour of frictionless pins is
> lt grey.
Also, in the distant past TLC has actually produced the non friction
variety of axle pin in black (I own a few myself). Although that probably
doesn't matter to TLC :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
(*) I didn’t realize that was debatable. What’s the M stand for? Maybe we
should take this argument to another venue?
|
“TECHNIC building uses the “module” or “M” as a measurement of length. 1 M is
the distance from the center of one hole on a TECHNIC beam to the center of the
next hole. ”
So a 3 L studless beam is actually 2M
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Stump Dunn wrote:
| |
| |
(*) I didn’t realize that was debatable. What’s the M stand for? Maybe we
should take this argument to another venue?
|
“TECHNIC building uses the “module” or “M” as a measurement of length. 1 M is
the distance from the center of one hole on a TECHNIC beam to the center of
the next hole. ”
So a 3 L studless beam is actually 2M
Steve
|
Ugh. Is that metric? And you only count center-to-center, not the ends?
Leave it Lego to think of something like this.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Timothy P. Smith wrote:
| |
In lugnet.technic, Stump Dunn wrote:
| |
| |
(*) I didn’t realize that was debatable. What’s the M stand for? Maybe we
should take this argument to another venue?
|
“TECHNIC building uses the “module” or “M” as a measurement of length. 1 M
is the distance from the center of one hole on a TECHNIC beam to the center
of the next hole. ”
So a 3 L studless beam is actually 2M
Steve
|
Ugh. Is that metric? And you only count center-to-center, not the ends?
Leave it Lego to think of something like this.
|
That can not be true. For example, if you look at page three of the lego
factory technic section, what we call a 1x3 liftarm thin is described as 3M.
--Peter
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
That can not be true. For example, if you look at page three of the lego
factory technic section, what we call a 1x3 liftarm thin is described as 3M.
--Peter
|
http://technic.lego.com/technicdesignschool/lesson.asp?x=x&id=1_a
Dont shoot the messenger !
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.technic, Stump Dunn wrote:
> Dont shoot the messenger!
Hmm. That would seem to imply that a 1x3 thin liftarm is, indeed, 3M long. Yes,
"M" is defined as the distance between two hole centers, but the length of the
piece can be cleanly read off the graph behind it - 3M.
--
Brian Davis
| | | | | | |
