Subject:
|
Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:29:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
851 times
|
| |
|
|
Oh, well, so much for my resolve to stay out of the fray...
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> [removed .dear-lego from crosspost list on this reply]
>
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Frank Filz writes:
> > I must say that I get tired listening to folks whining about POOPs when
> > it is regularly pointed out that there are in fact good reasons to use
> > them. One must also remember that there really aren't that many true
> > POOPs (note that a BURP is NOT a POOP - you can't possibly make a BURP
> > out of bricks - you can make something that in many cases looks the
> > same, but you can't make exactly the same thing, I'm also sure that a
> > BURP costs less than the 10+ bricks that it would take to replace it).
>
> The original example for a "POOP" (_P_ieces _O_utta _O_ther _P_ieces) back
> on RTL was a 1x1x5 tall brick, but IMHO, a BURP would also be an excellent
> example of a POOP.
>
> Naturally, it's true that you can't make a _hollow_ BURP out of regular
> rectangular bricks stuck together, but if anyone's claiming that a solid
> BURP can't be made out of 2xN's and 1xN's, I wanna see a mathematical proof
> of that before I believe it. :-)
Part of my point on BURPs wasn't that in many instances they are
effectively POOPs but that there are models which take advantage of
their hollowness. Probably such a use wasn't applied to the first model
which used the BURP, but I would be pretty confident that a BURP does
have a significant cost savings.
The 1x1x5, 1x2x5, 1x3x5, 1x5x5, 2x2x3, 2x4x3 and other such large bricks
are pretty clearly POOPs, but as I said they do have a use (and again to
those who detest the 2x4x3 brick, I am almost certain it was introduced
for the purposes of printed bricks in the 3+ sets, and I think that's a
good thing, once the mold exists, it may very well be cheaper to use it
instead of 3 2x4 bricks, and when they are trying to make a given model
fit a specific price point, well, which would you rather have, a set
which has a few POOPs or no set at all [ok, bad choice on 6600, I know a
lot of folks would have preferred that set not to have ever seen the
light of day, even had it been done "correctly", and of course several
folks will whine and whine and whine that the Millenium Falcon doesn't
meet the standards of the awsome models we have seen, never mind that
about 5 people would but the $1000+ set which would have resulted).
Ok, back into my cave.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
