Subject:
|
Re: Rant...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:14:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
633 times
|
| |
|
|
First of all: yes, I totally agree! It's great not to be alone.... I own
some early technic sets from when I was 10-14 and some I bought last year.
Because the removal company (Maguire in Bray, Ireland, beware!) was
particularly careless I lost a lot of pieces and had to build all my sets to
find what exactly I'm missing. Not only could I almost build 850 from memory
(after 15 years), but I also foud how much I still appreciate the looks and
working of sets like the bulldozer (856) and the power truck (8848).
People might think we're just a bunch of grumpy old men, going "things were
much better when we were young"... Problem is, they were. I won't say all
the new parts are bad news. There are some joints and connectors that are
really useful. But as Grant says, they should be used for detailing a model,
not to base a model on those new parts.
Eelco had a good point there about instructions. Just last night I put my
Destroyer droid together and it hit me how often I'd see a picture for just
one piece. In 84 pages they use about 300 steps for about 560 pieces. That's
less than 1,9 pieces per step. Compare that to the very first set (850): 21
steps for 203 pieces; 9,7 pieces per step.
Where I dare to differ is in trading looks for functionality. They don't
need to be mutually exclusive. Again, look at some old sets like 8848 and
8862. All sets that don't use any fancy specialist body parts, yet can do a
lot and look like the real thing. For a more recent (if not the last) good
design with a minimum of fancy bits and lots of techie stuff look at 8462.
One of the worst offences recently must be 8000, the pit droid. Does it do
anything? Oh yeah, it folds....
I think the new powerpacks are a nice step towards technic bulk. Maybe if we
all start buying them LEGO will release more. I'd also like to see more sets
like the old 871, just a load of beams and gears.
Mindstorms I think is great. I don't know the Dacta sets that Grant
mentioned. The problem with RCX is that it's at least an input and an output
short. I know you can always do with more, but consider some simple
projects: for an arm you need 3 motors for x,y,z bascically (as in: rotate,
in/out, up/down) and then one to open and close the hand. Make a moving
robot: two sensors for collision is a minimum, one for direction, and then
you want it to do something...
Rather than expanding RCX LEGO released the microscout: my main reason why I
haven't bought the droid kit (I still don't like the fact that R2's head is
only two pieces, but I'd love to have R2 go around my living room...). It's
too limited, and too expensive for what it does. And why on earth they
removed the external power connector for RCX1.5 is really beyond me...
Like Grant's Rant this has got longer than intended. If we're gonna send a
petition to LEGO, let me know: I'll definitely sign. More studs, less
Throwboriders!
Duq
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Rant...
|
| Let me begin by stating that I think Lego is one of the best companies on the planet. My experience with them is that they make an excellent product which they stand behind with spectacular customer service. They also usually listen to customer (...) (24 years ago, 29-Oct-00, to lugnet.technic)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
