hrontos Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 May be even us parents are pushing TLG to RC. When there is a 120eur model first question asked by parents is if it is a RC model. In that price range parents somehow expect the RC. Moreover, with RC it is no longer a construction toy for 12+ ages. The same model becomes a RC toy for 8+ ages. Daddy helps building it and from that moment it is a RC. Kid will not try to disassemble it, rebuild, start create their own models. Especially when it is only 8+. It's a pitty. Since 12+ old kids focus on electronic toys, tablet, computers. It looks like TLG is trying to attract their attention and at the same time the atttention of 8+ kids which are able to play RC, but building technic is not for them. For me, PF are interesting only as long as it is not overdone. A model with 10 functions powered by 10 motors, virtually no gears, since each motor almost directly controls one function is overdone for me. Model with 10 functions, powered by 4,5,6 motors with some gearbox for selecting functions is perfect technic model enhanced by PF. Model powered by only one motor with many functions purely mechanicaly and automaticaly changed are one of my favourites. Brick sorting machines made by various people, braiding machine made by nico71 are nice examples of true technic constructions. They would be easily made with many motors, but with only one motor chanllenge is higher. Of course, there are some cases, when not enough motors and too much gear boxes and changing gears ruin the playability. Just like too many motors ruin the technic. Quote
CP5670 Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 (edited) I like having one or two motors in the largest models, especially when they're used to power several different functions like 42009, but definitely appreciate manual functions that are well designed. As others have said, the problem is when motors are used in place of interesting mechanisms, or drive up the price of an otherwise small, non-flagship model. I have zero interest in 42030 for example, which is functionally identical to 8265 but just adds several motors (and costs over three times as much!). Sets like 42008 should be significantly cheaper for their piece count and functionality, and the only reason for the price is the PF elements. For the same reasons, I don't care for the fanmade upgrades to sets like 8043 or 42009 that add extra motors to achieve the same functionality, even if they make the models more playable. Modern Technic sets usually have poor manual controls in the form of black 12t gears, but they can be easily replaced with 1980s-style cranks that are much easier to handle. I make that adjustment on many sets. Edited August 17, 2014 by CP5670 Quote
Kelkschiz Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 For me there is a huge difference between sets with motors and MOC's with motors. I am a MOC-builder first and foremost, the last LEGO set i bought was 8043. Where official sets are concerned, i somewhat agree with you. It is part of the reason why i stopped buying LEGO sets. As a builder you don't need twenty battery-boxes or forty motors. Instead i started buying what i actually needed via BL. From a MOC perspective i guess using motors is partly down to personal preference, but in my mind also down to the MOC in question. With some MOCs, manual operation adds to the playability of the MOC. But with others, motors add to the playability. Especially when you have a MOC that is moving and doing complex operations while moving, in such a case you will need motor, because you only have two hands to work with. And finally i still think it's fascinating to see a MOC moving under its own power. It's a bit like magic :). Quote
torso Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 I considered getting a 42030 to get more technic parts and an XL motor. Because of the inclusion of the servo (and also because it's very yellow) I have decided not to buy one. It may be useful in vehicles, but is there any use for a servo in a stationary machine? Quote
Cumulonimbus Posted August 18, 2014 Author Posted August 18, 2014 It is nice to read that there are very diverse opinions about this topic. I agree that PF and RC can add value and the 8258 and 8043 are prime examples where this is implemented in a very nice way. Seeing that PF and RC-like features can be found in the entire TLG portfolio, even Duplo, I suspect that this is indeed an indication of changing expectations from kids and/or parents. I know it is a bit off topic, but I wonder if this trend means that we could even expect RC City sets besides trains? People talked about the magic of bringing own creations to live. I can understand what they mean, but I would admire it more in City sets. Just image remotely driving your car through you own city. It would even be technically possible to automate part of you city, where a number of cars follow a magnetic field in the road. To bring the discussion back to the Technic topic: people discussed the size of Technic sets. I want to state that I don’t have anything against growing size of Technic sets. I just think that there might be an optimum where the number of functions, the scale and the required bricks are balanced. Again, this is probably a personal preference, but for me this optimum can be found in medium scaled sets like 42006 and 42024. Remember that the great thing about Lego is that everybody is completely free to modify stuff they don’t like. Build on! Quote
Moz Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 The thing about set size for me is that almost every sets comes with wheels. I have enough wheels, more than enough. So a bigger set means fewer wheels per dollar, and I'm cool with that. To some extent the same with PF, although I do regularly run out of some PF parts (usually when I have three versions of a MOC on the go, admittedly), because I like to build "play sets" like the 42009 B model(s) where there's a bunch of vehicles that work together. Hence also my interest in the SBrick ... Quote
rollermonkey Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I considered getting a 42030 to get more technic parts and an XL motor. Because of the inclusion of the servo (and also because it's very yellow) I have decided not to buy one. It may be useful in vehicles, but is there any use for a servo in a stationary machine? Train folk use servo motors for crossing gates and the like, so yes. Quote
torso Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Train folk use servo motors for crossing gates and the like, so yes. I thought of that, but didn't really consider a train layout to be a stationary machine. I was looking for something with interesting mechanics that would be appropriate for this technic section. Seems like the servo is only useful when mechanics don't really matter. Now I'm suddenly tempted to come up with builds that use the servo as a challenge for myself. Quote
Lipko Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I agree with the original poster that I can feel less "attached" to an RC model since I don't have to touch it. But other than that, it is just a design choice. In my opinion, Lego is not really good for RC, there are better alternatives that still need to be assembled, can be MOC-ed etc (there's a metallic toy that highly resembles and based on Lego Technic, it was discussed in the forum some time ago). So I prefer models that fit Lego better and feel better for me, which are manually operated models. These can also include Power Functions if the operation is more convenient with them (obviously I hate turning knobs for 60 seconds to move something up or down). For me, cars are perfect examples for manual models, I would never consider building/designing purely RC car models, maybe I'd just design an RC mod to please RC fans and add an extra challenge to the design. Quote
D3K Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I am very divided on this matter. As I find it immensely rewarding to make a complex geartrain that works just like intended, like the "gearbox" in my Swingloader Mk II, as seen in the picture below; ... I still find it very interesting to make MOCs without any PF or RC components as well! I still concider the 8x4 Recovery Truck I made last year to be my best MOC to date, and that didn't contain any electrical components, but rather I attempted to make it like I remember Technic sets from my childhood, albeit in a studless package Quote
anton1678 Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Lego is better than regular RCs because you can make it how you want it Trouble is it's easier for people to know how it works if there isn't a gearbox or any complicated mechanisms and TLG is designing it for kids who don't care what's inside something as long as it's easy to build and good performance. It's easier to build with more motors and "contains 10 motors" looks good on the box Quote
Appie Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I am very divided on this matter. As I find it immensely rewarding to make a complex geartrain that works just like intended, like the "gearbox" in my Swingloader Mk II, as seen in the picture below; ... I still find it very interesting to make MOCs without any PF or RC components as well! I still concider the 8x4 Recovery Truck I made last year to be my best MOC to date, and that didn't contain any electrical components, but rather I attempted to make it like I remember Technic sets from my childhood, albeit in a studless package I don't want to necro that topic to say how awesome that 8x4 truck is, so I say it here But looking at the video in that topic and your explantion about the problems you faced with the boom extention and with this current topic in mind, that boom extention probably would have liked a PF motor (no idea where you'd put it though ) Quote
kibosh Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I can't speak to PF and RC in Technic models, but I can comment on them in our large LUG train/town displays. People LOVE the motion in our setups! I started picking up some PF/RC stuff so I can incorporate more movement. Things like amusement park rides. The RC controllers also make running our trains much easier because you can walk around and control them. I'm really liking the PF and RC stuff! Quote
D3K Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) I don't want to necro that topic to say how awesome that 8x4 truck is, so I say it here But looking at the video in that topic and your explantion about the problems you faced with the boom extention and with this current topic in mind, that boom extention probably would have liked a PF motor (no idea where you'd put it though ) Thanks for the compliment regarding the truck In an earlier version of the truck I had the boom extention motorized, and needless to say; it was a lot easier! I had the motor inside the rear of the outer boom, and then a switch going through the bodywork, much like some of the pneumatic valves in the final model. I also had a compressor unit along with batterybox inside the cabin, so that's where it got the power from. Eventually I decided to make the compressor optional, and rather make an interior with seats and stuff. Thus I lost the batterybox, and thus I opted to remove the boom extention motor as well. In the end I was happy that the model was all-non-PF, even though the boom extention was pretty slow. At least I had a crank, and not just a double bevel gear for the mechanism Edited August 20, 2014 by D3K Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.