Subject:
|
Re: MOC: crawler crane
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:23:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1984 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:17:20 GMT, "Steven lane" <steveroblane@aol.com>
wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> > > 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??
> >
> > Take a look at Thomas Truss bridge:
> > http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/challenge/vote.html
> >
> > Now tell me how your working crane with Technic parts in it can be
> > less Technic then Thomas (almost) stationary bridge? :)
>
> 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.
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.
> I've alway avoided trying to come up with a definition for what is and isn't
> Technic because it's so difficult. I think any model that had a third of
> it's structure built of Technic bricks would probably qualify as being
> Technic. I also think as models stray away from the Technic catagory they
> should be described as Technic/Model Team or Technic slash whatever their
> combined with.
Makes me think where to draw the line in Technic.
If the models purpose is to work and actually do stuff I'd say it's
Technic and if it's main purpose is looks then it might be more of
Model Team. If the model in question replicates something "real" of
course.
Bah! Why bother? As long as it's fun to build and display I feel ppl.
should put it in the categories they want to.
> Technic/Znap hybrid anybody?
>
> This is just my personal opinion though.
>
> Steve
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
