Instructions, old and new

[RockeTeK]

No, you did not post in this topic. You got into the wrong topic and your post is there: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=49918&st=165&p=916917entry916917

Sorry, my bad!

OT: read my post in the other topic, as stated by Nequmodiva!

[Out of Sight]

I kinda like the new instructions although I have no problem with the old ones. As some had said, the biggest issue when building any Lego models are distractions which leads to less concentration. I'm a 30+ AFOL..I can manage complex building steps with multiple parts.

But as an AFOL, we live in a real world. We don't live in a 'Lego Town', we live in dog eat dog world, no smiley minifigs to greet you. Stressful events and tasks at work usually cause a lot of physical fatigue..which leads to decreased concentration. As for me, I usually build my Lego at night after work. I'm down to 30% remaining physical endurance, but still want to enjoy my beloved Lego hobbying. The last thing I need is complex instructions which require a lot of attention and concentration. Sometimes during the night, my daughter wakes up, asking for a glass of milk or asking where Barney went, and requests daddy to 'find' him..while I'm in the midst of routing a tangled PF motor wires . So 'easier' instruction is less stressful for a multi tasking AFOLs imo and makes it easier to pickup where we left off.

[Stank]

You would think that the new instructions with down to 1 part pr. step are easier to follow, but I find myself spending an awful lot of time changing pages.

But one must also remember that LEGO didn't have computers in the old day. Steps were drawn manually.

Still:

LOL at the fail!

Anyway the older instructions are better (for me), but Out of sight is right too.

[Erik Leppen]

On a side note if studless building is generally considered more complex, why have lego gone to it ?

Because it makes more possible. I don't think we would have seen 8258 and 8043 like complexity in studded models (I think 8480 was kind of the best possible).

Edit: but the topic is not about studded vs. studless. Sorry for offtopic... About instructions.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Erik Leppen

[AndyC]

There's an opportunity for an AFOL solution to this, of course. All you'd need to do is build the set once in LDRAW, marking the steps so as to build a digital copy of the existing instructions. Then steps could be graded (using some kind of agreed upon labelling perhaps) in such a way that software could automatically combine steps depending upon how difficult a build you wanted.

[Blakbird]

There's an opportunity for an AFOL solution to this, of course. All you'd need to do is build the set once in LDRAW, marking the steps so as to build a digital copy of the existing instructions. Then steps could be graded (using some kind of agreed upon labelling perhaps) in such a way that software could automatically combine steps depending upon how difficult a build you wanted.

Spending a bunch of effort on something in order to intentionally make it harder offends the engineer in me.

I also prefer the old instructions. Having just rebuilt all the old models though, I can say there are a few times in which I had to go back because I realized I screwed something up. And this is obviously not from lack of experience building Technic. This has virtually never happened with a new set except in a couple of cases with a brand new set in which there was an error in the instructions. So I guess the new ones are more "fool proof". However, again referencing the engineer in me, I appreciate being given the opportunity to screw something up, fix it, and learn from it instead of having the whole solution handed to me.

[AndyC]

Well the low-tech way is to just skip occasional steps in the manual, but doing something manually that a computer could do offends the software engineer in me.

I suppose going through the LDD offical sets thread has got me wondering how the effort of people reproducing sets digitally could be used to enhance the AFOL community. It would be more effort, but would only need to be done once per set and I didn't really envision it necessarily being the same folk producing 'hard' instructions (or conversely simplified versions for old sets) as those who might want to use them.

[rgbrown]

I suppose going through the LDD offical sets thread has got me wondering how the effort of people reproducing sets digitally could be used to enhance the AFOL community. It would be more effort, but would only need to be done once per set and I didn't really envision it necessarily being the same folk producing 'hard' instructions (or conversely simplified versions for old sets) as those who might want to use them.

Most (all, Blakbird?) of the sets so far on Technicopedia have LDraw models

[Blakbird]

Most (all, Blakbird?) of the sets so far on Technicopedia have LDraw models

Not quite all, but that is my goal. Many people have made those models and many I have made myself. I've had an open request for a long time for anyone who like to submit any of the models I don't have. They will, of course, be credited.

[richthelegodude]

Hmmm,

I am always thinking along this line but then ...

Google was simply not there when "we" figured things out. Now it is. Do we use it? I do. Every single day. I don't spend ages in the library anymore.

TLC is a globally operating enterprise and there is though competition out there. Take Playmobil: They have every single theme TLC has in their inventory. Their stuff looks slick, clean and there is no single stud in the way. And you almost don't have to think at all how to put things together. The way young folks experience life changes with breathtakingly speed. Everything is in motion. I guess TLC is just adjusting to this change much faster than "we" do. We love the olden days, they always have been better.

I am not saying this is any good. Not at all. But I do know that students at age 14 figure out with a snap of there fingers how a Stirling motor works. And they are bored. When I figured it out way back then, I was thrilled.

Things do change. They have to. TLC goes along and at the same time, PF LEGO trains run on 4.5V track like a charm. I guess they are having an as hard time as we have, but they have to make big money - drawing it mostly from parents. And the kids do know Google pretty well.

Just my thoughts.

Best regards,

Thorsten

I entirely agree, when I figured things out as a kid I found it really fun. Students these days just do not seem to get the fun factor.

Because it makes more possible. I don't think we would have seen 8258 and 8043 like complexity in studded models (I think 8480 was kind of the best possible).

Edit: but the topic is not about studded vs. studless. Sorry for offtopic... About instructions.

Off topic but I really do not agree with this. If you think about it the 8480 still offers perhaps the best functions per motor ratio, and the 8868 IMO is still the best crane truck, again offering a great function per motor ratio. The 8880 is still in my opinion the best super car they have done, with the super street sensation not really cutting the mustard for me

I think both studded and studless can create great creations and the best solution I think is a mix of both studded and studless, but TLC seems hell bent on studless sets only (in the majority). Plus don't all those pegs hurt your hands

[Plastic Nurak]

When I partecipated in old discussion, I wondered here (just below the post with the image) why when we were kids we had not problems, at least not as hard as it could seem, using these instruction multipieces.

Recently I recovered an old set, #8820, that at the time my aunt Tetta gave me for 1991 Xmas. It's a little model, but it has one step with a 20 pieces count and another one with a 21 pieces count (the total is 13 steps for 139 pcs). When I was a kid, I had no problem building the off-roader, although almost every step had a sub-step into it and other pieces were added in every angle of the model. It's sure that us kids had more attention than today's ones.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Plastic Nurak