| |
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”
|
|
|
