Subject:
|
Re: Studless Technic models
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:41:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2536 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, John Guerquin wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Steven Lane wrote:
> I agree Steven; building with studless is not easy - it takes quite a bit of
> practice. But I doubt any of us were immediate experts when we first started
> building with studded technic beams. It took practice. So will building with
> studless.
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 offset the height of a stud hole by one plate
height, like you can with old style? I tried to build a pnumatic controller and
couldn't fix down the new type switch in the correct place. I also found it hard
to secure it securely at all. The whole mounting would bend as I flipped the
switch. I fixed it, but not in the position I wanted too.
My building style also influence's my decision. I use a lot of system in my
models. Mainly full bodywork. And the best way of fixing plates down is directly
onto studded beams. I like SNOT construction and I can affix tiles and plates
directly without using an intermediate piece.
My fundamental problem with studless is that you can't make a simple frame like
you can with studded. Two 8L lenght beams with a 10L plate top and bottom
connected between two 16L beams is simplicity itself, and easily locked at 90
degrees. It also gives you a connection top and bottom. If you buit that from
studless the holes would be in the wrong orientation.
I dont regard a plate's stud rammed into a studless hole as a "proper"
connection.
> Absolutely not Steve!!! Why do you have such a strong desire to "kick them
> while they're down" ???
Because the right time to tell them things is when they're listening.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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, (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
60 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
