Subject:
|
Re: Studless Technic models
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:27:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2700 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Allan Bedford wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
Before I start, I'm taking three big deep breaths and relaxing.... I've got a
lot of energy on this topic. Jindrich, I understand and respect why you don't
like the studless beams, so please don't take this post as though I don't.
>
> > As I've built Backhoe yesterday, I still don't get that Lego move. Why
> > did they replace _ALL_ technic bricks with studless beams? I think that
> > the beams have 'right to live', for styling the outer parts they're
> > invaluable and models look better.
>
> I'm curious about your question. When you ask about Technic bricks being
> replaced by the studless beams, do you mean that you don't think there are any
> studded bricks out there at all? If so, perhaps you should try some of the
> Designer sets or even something like the UCS Snowspeeder. For instance in a set
> like the 4403 Air Blazers I was pleasantly surprised by the number of old-style
> Technic bricks that were there. However, if you mean that in many 'Technic'
> sets there seem to be few old-style bricks, then yes you might be right.
Jindrich, are you concerned that LEGO will no longer make those studly technic
beams, and only go with studless? Given the recent philosophical change by LEGO
about getting back to their core products (yes, technic is one of them), I'd bet
my whole LEGO inventory against yours that studly technic beams will not go
away, unless the whole company goes away.
So as Steven points out, you must be objecting that LEGO does not use very many
of their studly technic beams in technic sets. Studly technic beams have
permiated so many other non-technic products, maybe LEGO isn't concerned about
the ratio of studly vs studless technic beams.
Studless is a very interesting topic. There is a whole building philosophy
based on hiding studs, called SNOT. It is not that studs are ugly or anything,
but they do look unnatural when trying to make realistic designs. SO do unused
holes for that matter, but LEGO has yet to create plugs for the holes. I've not
spent a lot of time understanding the rich philosophy of SNOT, but the SNOT
models I've seen try to mask holes just as much as studs.
By definition studless (wimpy?) technic beams can be used for SNOT designs
because they are studless. I'm sure that one of the reasons LEGO uses wimpy
beams is for looks. Not all consumers love the stud as much as we do, so they
are trying to make their products more attractive to the less initiated.
>
> > But the traditional approach of building from bottom to top (few technic
> > bricks, some plates, some additional bricks and 90deg beam connections
> > is IMO much more logical _and_(!) in line of previous Lego experience of
> > the builder.
>
> I agree, and in my own building style I often rely on the bottom to top method.
While this method is tried and true for buildings and things who's shape is
static, it doesn't work for something that doesn't have back corners.
You still need to describe building instructions from bottom to top, back to
front for very important reason. The ability to see parts added in a step.
This is independent of whether the added part is studly or wimpy.
When I make my designs, I do not start out initially from the back corner to the
front. I start at what often ends up at the middle of the design and work my
way out, but this is because I use a very genetic mutation kind of technique
when synthesizing a new design. When I lay out step by step building
instructions, the order of parts added is bottom to top and back to front,
trying to reduce the number of model flips and rotations.
>
> > This studless way of building is IMO much more complicated
I don't know if pins and holes are inherently more complicated than male and
female stud parts. It is just different. Holes, pins and axles provide a much
more rich building medium than studs, especially in models that change shape.
>
> What's wrong with complicated? :)
>
> Isn't that what makes Technic models more interesting than others?
It certainly allows you to create things you cannot create without them.
Every part that LEGO produces, the produce for a reason, to make money. The
making of the molds is very expensive, so I'm sure a business case must be made
for each new mold. One of the most common reasons for new part types (and
therefore molds) is because the new part lets you do things that the old parts
cannot.
There are many things that you can do with a wimpy beam than a studly beam.
Many many. Your designs can often be more compact and use less parts with wimpy
beams.
I don't normally post failed models or models that are incomplete, but I'll give
you a preview to give you some insight into why I'm a fan of wimpy beams.
This is my current work in progress: PHU (Pneumatic Hexapod Unidirectional)
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/kclague/phd/p1110078.jpg
Here is a particular place where the design is so compact due to uses of wimpy
beams. You could not relpace the black wimpy beam in the leg with a studly
beam. You are looking at the hip joint that has two degrees of freedom. One is
a side to side sweep, and the other is a leg lift and leg drop.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/kclague/phd/p1130088.jpg
Notice hwo close the clothes hanger part and the black wimpy beam are to the
vertical axle and liftarms. Now when I lift the leg:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/kclague/phd/p1130083.jpg
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/kclague/phd/p1130089.jpg
The coat hanger sweeps up and brings the wimpy beam even closer to the axle. It
is so close that a studly beam cannot be used without restricting the range of
motion.
Here is another place where studly beams won't work, without using about 3 times
as many parts (and would be less structurally sound, and larger).
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/kclague/phd/p1130085.jpg
My next one needs to be able to turn itself right side up.
Here is the specific place where studly beams would be a much worse choice.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/kclague/phd/p1130086.jpg
At the vertex of two sides of the hexagonal body, we use Doug Carlson's favorite
part, the dreaded three pronged lift arm (I'm sure it has an offical name).
To make it so that the sides of the hexagon can't move, we have to use at least
two holes on each side connecting to the tri-lift arm. You cannot do that by
simply replacing the wimpy beams with studly beams. Therefore the design is
more compact using wimpy beams.
>
> > and completely different when compared to traditional Lego brick
> > building. Not mentioning that attaching a beam to 4-5 pins is a pain.
>
> Sometimes, but it's also very rewarding when you're done.
Is different bad? Or just unfamiliar?
>
> > really possible that 11 years old could assemble it without problems?
>
> My former 11-year-old self could have done it. I can't speak for anyone else.
My 10 year old son could have done it.
>
> > 3) Have anybody of you tried to build studless MOC?
>
> Not completely out of studless, but I use them in original creations along with
> traditional bricks.
See above. It is a pretty wimpy (studless) hexagonal walker.
The only place that I needed studs was here:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/kclague/phd/p1130087.jpg
I might have been able to do using wimpy parts, but it made the most sense to
use studly parts.
Would you deny me the use of wimpy parts because it is unfamiliar?
Steven?
>
> > 4) Should we bother TLC with this issue too?
>
> Nope. They have plenty to deal with right now. Studless bricks (and the
> studded ones that they are still making) are not causing problems that are in
> any way like the other things that have lost so much money recently.
If it is important to you then do what you must. I won't be calling in to vote
for wimpy beams, because I think both wimpy and studly beams are here to stay.
While you're lobbying for studly beams, how about more uses of 1x14.
>
> All the best,
> Allan B.
Respectfully,
Kevin
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
| | | Re: Studless Technic models
|
| (...) Just to clarify; I thought SNOT was more about turning BASIC bricks on other edges then Studs on top (hence SNOT - Studs Not On Top). By turning parts around it creates different offsets etc.. See Bram's BMW as an example of offset building: (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
| (...) I'm curious about your question. When you ask about Technic bricks being replaced by the studless beams, do you mean that you don't think there are any studded bricks out there at all? If so, perhaps you should try some of the Designer sets or (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
60 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
