Are Technic sets getting less complex?

[Jim]

Guys can I say something while looking at those pics?? One day our kids will say "oh the lego 42029 it's much better than what we have today".....and this talking about the future!

LoL This is exactly what will happen

[DarkShadow73]

WIthout reading all 4 pages of this topic I can say that the instructions have gotten really too easy, sometimes 1 or 2 parts per step. I do agree on the 8258, 8043 and 42009 sets. They are complex, esp the gearboxes. One wrong move, and you have to dismantle. With complicated gearboxes I tend to check each movement of a string of gears, clutches, and such to make sure they turn the right way before continuing. I got burned on the 8043 by not doing that and I ended up pretty much dismantling half the rear end.

I just glanced at a few replies quick, and as far as the pneumatics vs LA's issue, I believe that each has its own advantages and disadvantages. LA's are more smooth operating, whereas pneumatics, unless powered, are jerky and its hard to do multiple tasks at the same time and also keep pumping air as well. Case in point, comparison of the 42009 and 8421. The boom on the 8421 would go up nicely, but leave it for 24 hrs or even overnight and down it comes, same with the rear backhoe arm of the 8455, the main one that lifts the entire boom assembly. You can get it straight up, but within a day or so it sinks. I've found fixes for both creatively, but you have to remove the 'creative' pieces to use the crane again. Do I still think 8455 is my favorite Technic model, oh yes, it has style and lots of functions, but man could it use an airtank. The 8464 has one along with 2?? for my 8462 Tow Truck (unneeded), and both models work easier as a result without all that handpumping continuously. Whereas, the 42009 with the dual LA's goes up and stays up. I haven't built the 8110 with all the pneumatics, but it sounds like it isn't as complex as I thought it would be after glancing at a post on it. It looks that way though.

And, like TheItalianBrick said and Jim concurred, someday my kids are going to get into Technic and say gee, that 42029 is really cool and ancient, whereas we look back at the studded age and say gee those are cool. I'm 41 yrs old and I love both studded and studless for different reasons, I still had an expert builder basic set I got in the early 80's for a present, but my bro and I had killed the parts pretty good so I tossed it, but we built many different models with our Legoland parts along with the Technic parts and it occupied us for hours at a time. I think studless is more complex, more parts to assemble, but the look is cleaner, more realistic, whereas studded models from the 80's and 90's just had a lot of really incredible functions too, even in some of the smaller models. And actually if you build a medium size studded set, the steps are longer, have more parts, thus smaller instruction manuals too, and they aren't as clear as the manuals in the past decade or so, many of those older set builds you had to think a minute because sometimes you installed an assembly on both sides, but one side may be different than the other, and it made you think. One such model I built recently was the 8443 Log Loader and it was a bit complex I thought, not a lot of arrows and spinarounds like they have in modern day instructions.

Edited January 15, 2015 by DarkShadow73

[Saberwing40k]

I actually liked how some of the older Technic sets were more skeletal, which placed more emphasis on the functions, and less on the looks. But, more relevant to the question, I think some sets have gotten simpler, but flagships have also gotten more complex, so it all balances out.

I also agree with what everyone is saying about IR, and the design cycle.

[SNIPE]

Yes no

[bonox]

Yes no

maybe

I believe that the complexity of the past manifested itself in a broad range of ideas that the newer era has been short of. Look at the universal sets of the past - plotters, dinosaurs, windmills, engines, books full of different ideas including a car manufacturing plant, combinations of sets to produce new sets (helicopter 852? plus original supercar to get a full bodied jeep for example)

That kind of broad set of ideas is missing in the newer sets. Complexity now just means doing the same set of functions in another vehicle - and standard vehicle types too; no more space shuttles for example. That's one reason I think the 2015 arctic truck is interesting.

Edited January 15, 2015 by bonox

[Blakbird]

That sounds more likely. I don't actually remember very well, it was...1987. Brickset shows the hand-built shocks version. But maybe 8860 went to market with the grey pre-assembled shocks as new parts? The hand-built shocks would have been weak.

As far as I know, the hand-made shocks only appear in the cover photography 8860. All the sets that actually shipped use modular shocks but the cover art was not updated.

I am very satisfied with the level of complexity and the overall quality of the Technic line. Although I wouldn't mind a UCS Technic set in the 400-500 euro range once every few years. On the other hand; there are so many great NMOCs to build.....

And I do agree on a 400-500 euro set as it will be immortal, a collection set, a must have! Look at the Star Wars theme......cm'on TLG wake up!!! We are waiting for these things to come on the shelfs!

I've been dreaming of and asking for this for many years. In mind, the problem is business. There's a pretty big market for Star Wars UCS models. The market it nowhere near as big as for regular Star Wars models, but it is still pretty big. Technic is a small market in the first place, and UCS Technic is a very small market. I have no doubt that such a model could be developed (and probably has been), but I doubt they'd ever make the business case positive. I hope I'm wrong.

Everyone knows this will never happen in the next 20 years.

At 2,000 parts, they already face the limit of the system...

I don't think everyone knows that. I have lots of models on my shelves with more than 2000 parts, and several with more than 4000 parts that work very well indeed (and some that don't). I don't think we've reached the limit of the system, but rather the limit of the market. It is certainly true that getting a model to pass the quality standards becomes exponentially more difficult as the model becomes very large. For example, the UCS Star Destroyer would never pass the "kid-proof" requirements for a small set. It falls apart if you look at it too hard. It is a display model. Similar compromises would have to made for a Technic UCS. You could not jump it down the stairs like a pull-back racer. But you could still have an epic model.

I'd like to have been present at the meeting where they decided that IR is the right method of transmitting signals for the power functions sets.

I can't argue that IR stinks as a control system, but it makes perfect sense that they chose it. It's use is widespread and minimally regulated. Most other technologies are regulated or can be expected to change over the upcoming years (like Bluetooth).

[m0dulo]

TLG has already been in contact with SBricks, so who knows.

I do like the newer style panels better too. Plain design and lots of variation.

I hope they don't pull "a Modulex" with SBrick on us. ;)

Edited January 16, 2015 by m0dulo

[Yoshieekid]

To me, less complexity generally means a better design. I believe in the K.I.S.S. principle (Keep it simple, stupid!). It could be that the decrease in complexity is a good thing?

I just started building Technic sets, but I've built 5 of the big ones so far (42000, 42008, 42029. 42030, 9398). I've learned something new from each set and am excited to see what comes next!

[MrPaulo23]

I bet I can.

Everyone knows this will never happen in the next 20 years.

At 2,000 parts, they already face the limit of the system...

Not unless TLG strikes a deal get a licensed European off-roader with a piston engine linked to PF and packs Unimog-style tires, I'm thinking in the shadows of 6x6 Mercedes-Benz Zetros, or a classic Unimog 406, why not a Land Rover Series I or II, neither have V-8s but has seen immense use in Europe. Anyway most challenging set for me are my 2 8110s.

[ComMix]

How do we measure complexity? One 'metric' is by the amount of connectivity between components. For only this metric, one can easily build connectivity matrices and based on how sparse such matrix, come up with an objective metric for complexity. However, degree of connectivity is NOT by itself a measure of complexity as one can add how elaborate the parts used are. For sure an LA would score more points than a liftarm. While we still have no metric, all statements in this thread are subjective at best. To me, the two most complex contraptions I've ever built were the 8258 Red Crane Truck (we all agree on this) and D3K's SwingLoader II.

One thing I've sure noticed with Technic, especially going to studless, is that official sets/designs tend to be more hollow, and 42000 is a prime example.

What do you mean? It's a F1 Racer. Which function do you expect? A winch?

But the crux of the matter, is Technic getting cooler or not? I say not

This is cool, actionpacked, looks boss and is fun to PLAY with :

This is made of suck :

Cheers,

Ole

It's always a personal view on the both. I have neither but you also can compare like 8851 and 8043 so which one is cooler here?

For me 8851 has a lot of nostalgia for me but 8043 is way much cooler.

Guys can I say something while looking at those pics?? One day our kids will say "oh the lego 42029 it's much better than what we have today".....and this talking about the future!

SO it's always the case...those onld sets remind my childhood so we tend to see them with different eyes cm'on!!

couldn't agree more

[DrJB]

... The boom on the 8421 would go up nicely, but leave it for 24 hrs or even overnight and down it comes ...

While some see this as a 'weakness' of pneumatic systems, to me it's more of an unavoidable touch of realism, especially with hydraulic/pneumatic systems. All Construction Machines I've worked on have a mechanical lock that must be engaged whenever the boom is to be left up for an extended period of time. This is primarily for safety reasons as hydraulic systems DO develop leaks, and the last thing you want is for that boom to come down (thanks to gravity) and cause serious damage or even injure/kill operators. For the same reasons, bulldozers' seats and seatbelts are equipped with safety switches that disengage the tracks should the operator decide to operate while standing. But, I'm digressing :)

What do you mean? It's a F1 Racer. Which function do you expect? A winch?

I'm not talking about functions, as it seems you missed the point. And, since you're asking, YES, I do want my F1 racer to pack not only a winch but portal axles and a pneumatic lift gate ;). Seriously though, my point was that many recent official sets seem 'hollow' with lots of empty space inside. In contrast, take a look at some of the outstanding MOCs out there, and they are rather dense. Those that come to mind are Madoka's SUVs and D3K's Swing Loader. I recommend building those (against 8448/42000) to appreciate the difference. Going back to the F1 racer, since when such cars come WITHOUT a transmission?

Guys can I say something while looking at those pics?? One day our kids will say "oh the lego 42029 it's much better than what we have today".....and this talking about the future!

Looking at my kids, only thing that matters now has got to be iPad-related ... and all legos I buy are because 'dad' wants to

Edited February 23, 2015 by DrJB

[Brickthus]

is it just me, or are Technic sets getting less and less complex? I like gears. And pneumatics are nice but it also means less gears so less complexity. Let's be honest: 8258 and 42009 were much more interesting on a technical level than 8110, 42030 or 42039

I think the addition of fewer parts per stage makes Technic building less complex. It means smaller children can build larger models, though this goes against the modern trend that children want the model built in an instant, rather than patiently plodding through 3-6 books of instructions. The amount of paper could be halved if the stages were done in the traditional way, though TLG decided to halve it by having the second model online only. Take your pick but, other than downloading some pdfs, I haven't built any online second models; there isn't enough space round my computer for the bricks!

Comparing gear trains and pneumatics, pneumatics can do a whole function with just a cylinder and a switch, compared to the complexity of a long gear train. Gear train issues include keeping torque low till the last stage and manoeuvring round other items, both of which are done easily with pneumatics. The real criterion is that pneumatics have been used simply in sets, with only one exception in 8868's alternative model. In no other case in a set has one pneumatic function initiated another. Unfortunately TLG has decided not to boost the education of the community in the complex pneumatics department in 42043 or its alternative model. I await developments for future pneumatic kits.

If you would like to do complex pneumatics, try these problems:

- Start with a few building blocks including logic gates.

- How to make a pneumatic steam engine (this is where 8868 began).

- How to do multiple automatic functions with pneumatics in a single cycle.

- How to make a pneumatic stepper motor for remote rotation where an electric motor could not go in real life (e.g. hot environment) or for a LEGO steam loco.

- How to have multiple pneumatic functions that are operated different numbers of times in a cycle.

- How to stop a cylinder in the middle, and cascade that functionality.

- How to stop a cylinder anywhere you want it to stop, and react to the load.

- How to make a pneumatic flight simulator platform and servos for it (2 work, 4 more to make).

- How to make a more realistic pneumatic steam engine with variable speed (potential to be developed).

There will always be more to learn in solving the problems you pick for yourself!

...

It's always a personal view on the both. I have neither but you also can compare like 8851 and 8043 so which one is cooler here?

For me 8851 has a lot of nostalgia for me but 8043 is way much cooler.

...

8851 was a great introduction to the idea of multiple pneumatic functions. Unfortunately the Mk1 pneumatic system had a fundamental flaw; it was unable to drive two functions in opposite directions at once because the movement of switches in opposite directions caused all the air to leak out! The basic rule is: If you want to retain air pressure, feed the source only to the middle port of a pneumatic switch.

The non-return valve was fun but when I tried emulating a non-LEGO fire engine by putting the input line in a cup, the middle to a cylinder and the output through a small tube I soon wrecked the valve - it wasn't up to the higher pressures of pumping water!

8043 also had a fundamental flaw in the misuse of LAs; it needed a rollover of LAs whose clutches were wrecked when the design flaw in the gear train caused uneven extensions of a pair of them. In the way of finding flaws in the technical aspects of the product, 8851 and 8043 have much in common!

The Mk2 pneumatic system introduced a second nozzle at the top of the cylinder and this allowed complex automated machines to be made. Anyone for fitting the 1/11 cylinders of 42043 to a LEGO train?

Mark

Edited February 23, 2015 by Mark Bellis

[DrJB]

...

If you would like to do complex pneumatics, try these problems:

- Start with a few building blocks including logic gates.

- How to make a pneumatic steam engine (this is where 8868 began).

- How to do multiple automatic functions with pneumatics in a single cycle.

- How to make a pneumatic stepper motor for remote rotation where an electric motor could not go in real life (e.g. hot environment) or for a LEGO steam loco.

- How to have multiple pneumatic functions that are operated different numbers of times in a cycle.

- How to stop a cylinder in the middle, and cascade that functionality.

- How to stop a cylinder anywhere you want it to stop, and react to the load.

- How to make a pneumatic flight simulator platform and servos for it (2 work, 4 more to make).

- How to make a more realistic pneumatic steam engine with variable speed (potential to be developed).

...

Very 'inspiring' questions you're asking here. Is it fair to 'infer' you've already answered most of them?

When 8455 came out, it reminded of 'cascaded' functions I learned during a 'Pneumatics Automation' course I learned in High School few decades ago. I got 2 copies of the 8455 (20 cylinders!) and few more valves off bricklink. I wanted to replicate many of the L/U/T cycles I had learned back then. The closest contraption I built was

, which uses an 'L-cycle'.

Yes, pneumatics offer a lot of potential for automation ... if only one has the time (and parts).

Edited February 23, 2015 by DrJB

[ComMix]

I'm not talking about functions, as it seems you missed the point. And, since you're asking, YES, I do want my F1 racer to pack not only a winch but portal axles and a pneumatic lift gate ;). Seriously though, my point was that many recent official sets seem 'hollow' with lots of empty space inside. In contrast, take a look at some of the outstanding MOCs out there, and they are rather dense. Those that come to mind are Madoka's SUVs and D3K's Swing Loader. I recommend building those (against 8448/42000) to appreciate the difference. Going back to the F1 racer, since when such cars some WITHOUT a transmission?

Looking at my kids, only thing that matters now has got to be iPad-related ... and all legos I buy are because 'dad' wants to

Ok, you got me on Racers to have a transmission

But comming back to dense vs. hollow. Its quite easy. TLG has a max. part number for hitting a specific Pricerange. Now the Desingner can decide wether to make a smaller but more dense model vs. a much bigger but more hollow Version which they can cover with all the big "Hull" Parts. Sometimes they will go for the first some for the latter decission.

[Boxerlego]

I would say Technic sets became more complex as the parts in the set change from Studded to Studless. I grew up in this transition and Studless building techniques were more complex but at the same time less intricate towards the details you could have done with Studded building techniques. The awesome thing about Studded construction is that it is rigid while the awesome thing about Studless construction is that it is flexible. The two construction methods are polar opposites in the manner in how you advantageously build with them but Studless eventually took over as the main means of Technic construction and has ended up replacing the Studded construction . The Rigid and more intricate Studded construction seems like a thing of the past but I'm willing to bet that if the 8110, 42030 or 42039 was built with Studded construction methods as well those sets would be better then they are now in terms in the way there are built they way the function and the way it looks overall.

[Brickthus]

Very 'inspiring' questions you're asking here. Is it fair to 'infer' you've already answered most of them?

How did you guess?

There are still a few problems to solve but it depends on the scope of machine and also the compression capability. My pick & place robot needs 6 pump cylinders and hands soon get tired!

Until TLG produce a spray-paint compressor product, the compression and hence machine size may be limited. A professional one of those may cost up to £500 but at least it would be quieter and allow longer running than a car tyre compressor. I might have to visit an art shop to see if they have one running, to sense the noise level.

When 8455 came out, it reminded of 'cascaded' functions I learned during a 'Pneumatics Automation' course I learned in High School few decades ago. I got 2 copies of the 8455 (20 cylinders!) and few more valves off bricklink. I wanted to replicate many of the L/U/T cycles I had learned back then. The closest contraption I built was

, which uses an 'L-cycle'.

Yes, pneumatics offer a lot of potential for automation ... if only one has the time (and parts).

I bought 10x 8455, most on 3 for 2 at Toys R Us at the time. Great parts pack

Some cylinders have a better top seal than others. Some leak air in if you put your finger over the top nozzle, extend the cylinder by hand and let go. Where the cylinder ends up shows the seal quality.

Pneumatic robots tend to need a good top seal. I used ones with a poor top seal for controlling rail points; 2 cylinders end to end using the bottom nozzles only.

I think of the "L" cycle as a gray-code machine, since the basic loop follows a repeating cylinder state sequence of 00, 01, 11, 10.

I have found that 2-state logic automata tend to need about 2 valves per cylinder on average. A single cylinder could push 4 valves in a 2x2 grid but otherwise a pair push up to 5 in a line.

My 4-function Octopus arm, which picks up an item on the ground (sea bed!) and uncurls in reverse to let it go above ground, has a logic board to remove most of the weight from the arm. This fills a 32x32 plate and one logic stage on the board has 6 cylinders pushing 9 valves! The total is 17 cylinders and 24 valves. I dread to think how many it would need for a full Octopus! I think each arm would have to be cut down to 2 functions rather than 4, which can be done with some Technic geometry.

Mark

[DrJB]

This is really awesome, and brings me back many many years ago. I recall during that high-school course, we started with electrical circuits/logic, and then moved to pneumatics, all of this with truth tables and actual hardware implementation. One of the 'ideas' that I remember vividly was that while x = a + b is possible with electrical switches, it is not possible in pneumatics. There, one must instead use x = a + not(a)×b. What this means is that you need a path for the return air/fluid. I can only appreciate how complicated this becomes when there are more than 2 variables/states as in your multiple implementations. In any event, your discussion/exposure is very refreshing, and a pleasure to read. Together, of course, with your brickshelf folder.

Cheers.

[Brickthus]

Thanks

...One of the 'ideas' that I remember vividly was that while x = a + b is possible with electrical switches, it is not possible in pneumatics. There, one must instead use x = a + not(a)×b. What this means is that you need a path for the return air/fluid...

With pneumatics it's easier than with hydraulics. Hydraulics definitely need a fluid return path to the tank but pneumatics can get away with selective leaks to the atmosphere. The way to do this in LEGO pneumatics is to always feed the air supply to the centre nozzle of a switch valve. Do the same for a cylinder nozzle that needs to be pressurised in more than one state of the logic gate.

In the OR gate:

The top nozzle is fed to the centre nozzles of the switch valves.

I actually have the OR and NOR the wrong way round . This would soon be fixed in a model!

For simple control in industry, especially where the driver controls the functions, a 5/2 valve can be easier but the LEGO 3/2 valves have an advantage in being able to make these circuits. Of course the logic is in PLCs and FPGAs in industry these days so the exercise of pneumatic logic is educational and done "because we can". Industrial logic would also be synchronous, where these pneumatic circuits would be asynchronous by default. To make them synchronous would require a lot more parts for the extra gates!

It is quite possible to make an adder with these gates, or even an 8-bit computer with a room-full, but watch out for the logic races, which are the order of seconds in pneumatics, as opposed to microseconds in electronics!

Mark

[Captainowie]

Hi Mark.

I remember some years ago reading a detailed write-up by Kevin Clague that starts with a simple feedback loop, and progresses through a mathematical notation to developing complex pneumatic sequences. Kevin's website is no longer online, but I was able to find a copy on the Wayback Machine here http://web.archive.org/web/20090412234424/http://www.kclague.net/Sequencer/index.htm, though without the very useful pictures.

Do you know of a similar resource available now?

Owen.

[Jeroen Ottens]

Hi Mark.

I remember some years ago reading a detailed write-up by Kevin Clague that starts with a simple feedback loop, and progresses through a mathematical notation to developing complex pneumatic sequences. Kevin's website is no longer online, but I was able to find a copy on the Wayback Machine here http://web.archive.o...encer/index.htm, though without the very useful pictures.

Do you know of a similar resource available now?

Owen.

Hispabrick magazine covered this in two articles (Hispabrick no 13 & 14 if I am not mistaken)

[Captainowie]

Hispabrick magazine covered this in two articles (Hispabrick no 13 & 14 if I am not mistaken)

Yep, those are the ones. Thanks!

[foursnow]

What would you guys say are the most complex/innovative sets in the current line (available now)?

I assume 42009 would be near the top, but what else? 42025? 42030?

[Jockos]

I don't think 42030 is near the top. But 42043 definitely!

[Freekysch]

Maybe find a second hand 8110 Unimog ? That was complex and innovative, had the PF + pneumatics, great parts, great wheels.

[DrJB]

Complex? Try 8043, 8455, 8258. The transmission/gearbox of the 8258 is truly one-of-a-kind. The 42009 pales in front of it (my opinion only, of course).

Edited March 8, 2015 by DrJB