 | | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) Don't catch my on my every word, please, I'm not a native speaker so expressing some subtle feelings and so are rather hard for me ;-) I just think of studded beams/holed plates as a 'compatibility layer' between System and Technic. My old 744 (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) This is the same point I made earlier. Building with studless is hard therefore possibly damaging it's appeal to the kids who are supposed to be the market for technic. Adult users of Technic are I think very rare. And how with studless do you (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) Cool. :) It just makes sure we're all on the same page. (...) Actually it was specifically the words, "right to live" that seemed to indicate you felt these parts were dead, gone, deleted, discontinued etc. etc. Once again, this was why I (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) I should have written 'the studless beams'. (...) Of course, I'm not against the studless beams. I'm against replacement of studded beams with studless in new Technic sets, rendering them incompatible with System. Technic (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) But this complication is unnecessary and doesn't bring anything new/positive. Rather the other things - studless beams are incompatible with System. That's a major issue. They had to design completely new pneumatics for it. We may also see new (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
Hello everybody, (...) True. But then, I have enough studded beams to build whichever way I want. Therefore I welcome the addition of other types of parts to my collection. In fact, LEGO has to come up with new cool parts in new cool models to make (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Purpose of part 32072
|
|
Hello everybody, Others have already elaborated on the advantages of this part, so let me just add a picture taken from the 8455 alternate model for those of you who haven't seen the part in its original application yet: (URL) The primary 8455 (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Part colors?
|
|
Hello everybody, (...) Moreover, some of these blue parts ARE visible on the alternate model: (URL) And IMO they would look better in black or grey, respectively ... Greetings Horst (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) I'm usually more of a lurker here nowadays, but when this topic came up (again), I had to add my 2 cents. Allan, I couldn't agree with you more. Technic is supposed to be more complicated than other lines. To me complicated = more challenging, (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) Jindrich, I also understand both sides of the argument. I see uses for both types of pieces, so I'm not hard core in either direction. (...) Also, I hope you understood my question about what it was you were concerned about. I just wanted to (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
