Subject:
|
Re: Informations on new TECHNIC element and color coded parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 May 2007 00:23:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
14900 times
|
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
38 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
|
|
|
|
