Subject:
|
Re: Call me a Lego pureist if you will but...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:43:58 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
micahx@kih.&AntiSpam&net
|
Viewed:
|
2349 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote:
>
> In lugnet.technic, Micah J. Mabelitini writes:
>
> > Despite your assertions to the contrary, many of the elements you listed
> > are *not* junk. The corrugated tubes are extremely useful, not only for
> > decoration but for constructing flexible articulated touch bumpers in
> > robots. Many of the Throwbot joints and liftarms have superfluous
> > decorative characteristics, but are nonetheless functional; and the
> > projectile cannon is quite good at what it does (it's optimized for
> > shooting cats, right?), and cannot be feasibly replicated with other elements.
>
> I honestly agree-- they've mostly got their uses, although I do agree
> further that making sets SOLELY out of these pieces is kinda annoying-- too
> many of these pieces can get on your nerves...
Agreed. The majority of these elements aren't primarily structural
elements, and to sell us models constructed entirely out of them is
extremely irritating.
> > SuperD wrote:
> > > http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/registry/misc/misc_2.html
>
> Actually, they're quite handy in a pinch, but seldom necessary-- I certainly
> don't need more than, say, 2, although I could see a want for as many as 8
> or so.
I've honestly never used them for anything, but I've seen some
interesting implimentations on the net that I might attempt if I had
more cannons.
> > > http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/registry/misc/misc_3.html
>
> Junk. I can't stand these-- granted they give models more curvy features,
> but quite frankly, they don't really appeal to me...
Yup, they're completely superfluous, although I've used them before to
achieve a desired look.
> > > http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/registry/throw/throw_5.html
>
> Junk. Sure, maybe to kids they're nice, but hardly useful for ANYTHING.
The discs are complete and utter garbage.
> > > http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/registry/throw/throw_4.html
> > > *** However, the gearbox is kinda useful :+)
>
> These are actually pretty great-- I admit I don't need lots of 'em, but
> there are several situations where they're great!
Yeah, the gearboxes are pretty cool. They can be real spacesavers.
> > > http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/registry/throw/throw_3.html
>
> Eh. Kinda junk. There may be some good uses for this sort of piece, but
> mostly it looks a little too decorative for my tastes...
This is one of those parts that's functional but over-decorative.
> > > http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/registry/throw/throw_2.html
>
> Ick.
This is a virtually worthless part. The best usage of them is as feet in
some of the Star Wars Technic sets.
> > > http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/registry/throw/throw_1.html
>
> Top three? Cool. Bottom three? Blech. I LOVE the ball joints-- I just hate
> the fact that they didn't initially offer a straightforward ball & axle piece
Agreed. The large ball joint sockets are alot more useful now that
they've released the generic ball joints with Technic cross axle holes.
I've also used the 32175 Foot several times to conjoin two studless
beams in parallel.
> > > http://w3.one.net/~hughesj/technica/registry/flex/flex_4.html
>
> Actually, these aren't that great for technic, but they're wonderful for
> decoration-- Certainly not without their uses.
These are my favorite of the elements on SuperD's junk list. I use them
all the time, not only for decoration but for creating contiguous and
extended surfaces for touch bumpers on Technic-based robots, so I would
have to disagree on the point that they "aren't that great for Technic".
They're also great because longer ones can be easily cut into shorter
official lengths, with no apparent purism fouls, and their morphology is
generic enough for them to not be too specialized.
> But on the whole I agree with the basic point. Throwbots are by no means
> technic. They're mostly just play-toys for kids-- very action-figureish,
> with the occasional helpful tidbit piece thrown in. (not to say that Lego
> isn't a children's toy, but let's just say the Throwbots are MORE childish
> than Lego-- IMHO :)
The Throwbots products definitely suck. They're better described as
"Technic-compatible" than true Technic.
--
Regards
Micah J. Mabelitini - LUGNET #918 - accutron@kih.net
The University of Kentucky - SECC Middlesboro ASC
http://www.users.kih.net/~micahx/brickdreams/
http://www.users.kih.net/~micahx/rcxbug/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Call me a Lego pureist if you will but...
|
| (...) I honestly agree-- they've mostly got their uses, although I do agree further that making sets SOLELY out of these pieces is kinda annoying-- too many of these pieces can get on your nerves... (...) don't need more than, say, 2, although I (...) (23 years ago, 24-Apr-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
