Fundamentally 'wrong' renditions

[allanp]

As was said above, it is " just" a toy :)

Maybe, but it's not a toy just for kids

[LennyRhys]

This is an interesting read. Despite my most recent MOC I'm usually more interested in building functional MOCs that would fit more into the advanced Technic category.

I agree with the statement that Lego will always have crippling restrictions; it is a plastic kids' toy after all, and there's only so far you can take it. Speaking as somebody who enjoys model building not just with Lego, I'd say that if you start to look at Lego's failings and misgivings, you will eventually lose your love for it. It is a toy (a very advanced and exciting toy, indeed), and you need to embrace that if you are to enjoy the building and playing experience.

[N-4K0]

I don't think it matters so much seeing that Lego is intended for kids. Of course it's always interesting to see real-life systems/setups incorporated into a Technic set, or innovative techniques not used before, but it's a toy. In the end, it comes down to that.

[Corvette3]

Maybe, but it's not a toy just for kids

That definitely reminds me of a certain movie.

[allanp]

well, is Lego Technic like a teletubbies show, or is it like a pixar movie? Both movies are for kids except one is only for kids and the other is for everyone, and Pixar is much better off artistically and financially for it. I don't think kid friendly and family friendly are the same thing. Lego is family friendly.

[Moz]

To me "fundamentally wrong" is often as much about the description as the model. Someone who posts a "supercar" model of a VW Beetle, a "microscale" Technic anything, or a "lathe" that's actually a milling machine. Those are all fundamentally wrong. Even more wrong are the "Technic model that actually flies (for real)" and other similar fantasies. But I normally just ignore those threads and models. If we had a downvote option or a "this person is not helpful" marker I'd use it, but we don't and I'm not going to campaign for that just so I can downvote things I currently ignore.

And using Lego to join a bunch of 3D printed parts and random other junk together is not a "Technic MOC", it's a mockery of Technic. By the criteria those people use we already have working Lego spacecraft that have gone into earth orbit.

I like the range of MOCs we see here, from Technic models that look amazingly realistic considering the number of functions, to model team stuff that works amazingly well given how realistic it is. I'm kinda freaking out at the bicycle models in the last couple of days, for example. So simple yet so plausible. But we can't upvote and I'm not into "me too" comments, even though that's the preferred thing here I just can't make myself do it.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Moz

[Saberwing40k]

When it comes to what I define as "blatant inaccuracies", I look at a function or method of construction that Lego could actually implement in a model. For instance, Lego could have done something really interesting with 42039, and given it a gearbox, or a more realistic front steering system, but did not. As Nathanial Kuipers proved with his Predator supercar, it is possible to intergrate stuff like that into a model in a fashion that is durable and easy to build. But, lately, it seems as if Lego is trying to appeal to more people with Technic, by making models simpler. Luckily, if 42043 is any indication, they have not sacrificed too much.

[DrJB]

... If we had a downvote option or a "this person is not helpful" marker I'd use it, but we don't and I'm not going to campaign for that just so I can downvote things I currently ignore ...

... But we can't upvote and I'm not into "me too" comments, even though that's the preferred thing here I just can't make myself do it.

Just in case you missed it, Post #12 (in this thread) might be relevant here.

Edited July 11, 2015 by DrJB

[dr_spock]

When it comes to what I define as "blatant inaccuracies", I look at a function or method of construction that Lego could actually implement in a model. For instance, Lego could have done something really interesting with 42039, and given it a gearbox, or a more realistic front steering system, but did not. As Nathanial Kuipers proved with his Predator supercar, it is possible to intergrate stuff like that into a model in a fashion that is durable and easy to build. But, lately, it seems as if Lego is trying to appeal to more people with Technic, by making models simpler. Luckily, if 42043 is any indication, they have not sacrificed too much.

That may be the case. Technic doesn't seem all that popular in North America. I think system builders may find Technic to be complex and daunting. Whenever I attend a parts draft, most people don't take the Technic pieces, I usually end up with them. Which is fine by me.