 | | Re: MOC: crawler crane
|
|
FUT changed/set to lugnet.technic (...) :) It's a nice crane you got there Rosco! I really like the new approach with Minifig scale! And that studless design on the crawler base is just in fashion! (...) Thanks, I am! MoTeC entry for April? *smile* (...) (22 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MOC: crawler crane
|
|
(...) Hmmmm. I'm not sure - I thought twice about even posting to .technic, as there's no motors or anything, and it's definitely not "technic scale". Does it really qualify as technic?? ROSCO (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MOC: crawler crane
|
|
(...) Take a look at Thomas Truss bridge: (URL) tell me how your working crane with Technic parts in it can be less Technic then Thomas (almost) stationary bridge? :) Alhtough I agree it could be _more_ Technic with perhaps a micro motor to drive (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MOC: crawler crane
|
|
(...) I'm sure any definition of Technic wouldn't require the model to actually move. In fact being mainly built of beams I'd catagorise T.J's bridge as being very Technic indeed. I've alway avoided trying to come up with a definition for what is (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MOC: crawler crane
|
|
(...) Like wise it does not need to be motorized or in Technic scale and I think the crane is Technic, perhaps not "very" but still Technic. Same goes for Thomas bridge. (...) Makes me think where to draw the line in Technic. If the models purpose (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MOC: crawler crane
|
|
(...) I see most of our MOCs as a combination of Model Team and Technic. I try not to classify what belongs where, and if it's questionable, then I'll just post to both MT and Technic groups :-) I think most of us that read Technic also watch the MT (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
