Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Bublehead said:

<off topic> I think you have found a new contest theme @Jim... how many parts can you eliminate from an official TLG set and retain the functions? Bonus points for increasing function count AND reducing part count. Call it a Bare Bones contest...

Please don't start intentional off-topic conversations. Especially since we have a contest topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a new red or what is going on in the video? It seems very deeply dark red - almost like it has been painted :cry_sad:

I don't mind the size of the model, even if it isn't necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mortenm said:

Is it a new red or what is going on in the video? It seems very deeply dark red - almost like it has been painted :cry_sad:

It looks slightly different to me, too, but I reckon it's the good ol' red that got all polished and shiny for the video. Bloody marketing hustles.

So funny how many folks are moaning and groaning about the high part count, especially because some of them were complaining last year about the LOW part count in 42070, which had less than half the parts of 42082 and cost more.

Come Black Friday this set'll be selling for €160 with a dumpload of cool parts - seriously, what is there to complain about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, suffocation said:

So funny how many folks are moaning and groaning about the high part count, especially because some of them were complaining last year about the LOW part count in 42070, which had less than half the parts of 42082 and cost more.

I don't think people complained about low part count in 42070 - I think many complaints were about high cost, unnecessarily big size and general ugliness of the model (the last one is a result of low part count, but it was not the part count itself that spawned the critiques).

And I don't think people complain about high part count in 42082 - i think many complaints are about, again, needlessly big size, and high part count in relation to functionality, or differently stated, unnecessarily high part count.

 

I think many of us complain from a buyer's perspective - many of us will buy the set anyway. I think many complaints are from a designer's perspective. Speaking for myself, I think the set could have become a better model, in the case of 42070 by being smaller and more detailed, and in the case of 42082 by being smaller and using fewer parts. But, that said, it still remains to be seen whether the size of 42082 is justified by what's inside. It may very well be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

and high part count in relation to functionality

This is something mentioned a few times... but to coin a phrase, its meaningless generalisation. For it stand up as an argument you need to quantify an acceptable function-to-part-count ratio. Its easy to generalise, which is why a poor debating tool. Howmany functions has BWE got for example.. more than 42082? probably not..  (drive, slewing, conveyor, arm raise lower..) vs (boom raise, extend, hook lower, stabilisers, steering, 4wd)

Looks to be less and no one mentions the Golden Ratio when discussing it... or Chiron. Steering, engine, gearbox, suspension. Big part count, BIIIIIG price tag, but again no one really jumps on the part count ratio... so why is 42082 in the Golden Ratio spotlight?

Obviously my function count was just off the top of my head when typing, but rather generalise meaninglessly, why not do an actual facts based assessment and see what the reality is?

For transparency, i love 42082. If it was a 4k piece empty box, i wouldn't.. but it isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TeamThrifty said:

For it stand up as an argument you need to quantify an acceptable function-to-part-count ratio. Its easy to generalise, which is why a poor debating tool. Howmany functions has BWE got for example.. more than 42082?

It's not a debating tool, because there's no debate. There are personal viewpoints and opinions, supported by arguments based on personal taste and preference. You can't really "debate" those. At most, you can disagree, and state why.

Which also means there's no "golden ratio" or whatever "acceptable" ratio. What is acceptable differs per person. Also, the number of functions isn't a very accurate measure, because it disregards the complexity. 42030 has 4 functions but I find it a very boring set, because I find it lacking in technical complexity. Yes, I find the Chiron lacking in functionality and arguably not even Technic, despite the marvellous gearbox and nice looks. But I also personally find the BWE's size perfectly acceptable given what it does, and one of the better and most original Technic sets of recent years. And for me, for now, 42082 seems to be larger than is needed for the functions it seems to have. I don't say you have to agree, or that it's not acceptable. It's just an opinion. And my opinion may change when I see the set being reviewed, or it may stay the same. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For one thing, the multidirectional gearbox in general requires more space than the multifunctional one. I'd much prefer the former because it is more intuitive to use.

Edited by Ngoc Nguyen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody thought if he is going to buy this set anyway, miss all reviews of it for discovering all features himself?

When you know everything before assembling set it's not so fascinating, imho.

Interesting to hear your opiniosn, guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

because it disregards the complexity

Complexity is an excellent additional metric. And for all i agree its a personal judgement call on the function part ratio, it still should be quantifiable to at least some degree... 

 

13 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

one of the better and most original Technic sets of recent years

I agree completely about BWE, but its part count to piece ratio is worse than 42082.. it gains on originality, so maybe that offsets the function count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the fact that it was “time for a crane” for the kids in the current demographic pipeline is why we see a big, high part count, but not a very different functional model.  How many kids have been waiting for a crane?  If they were 10 years old and saw the Mk II, they waited 5 years for their chance to build this one. That puts them in the sweet 15 year old demographic now and they are ready.  You’ve already lost the kids who were 13+ when the last crane came out.  Another year and you loose even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

@Bublehead Nah, the last crane came out in 2015. The number is 42042.

Which became maybe more popular even than 42009. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aleh said:

Which became maybe more popular even than 42009. 

Definitely did with me. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2018 at 12:06 PM, Jim said:

I reckon/hope that they are driven by two separate axles, turning in a different direction. Otherwise the model would be working properly, in the video, right?

Not really. The deviation is not that big, and has been discussed in detail in the 8043 thread and if I recall correctly also in the context of 42009.

Edited by emielroumen
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant “would not” btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ctx1769 said:

My only gripe about 42082 is it's not here yet :laugh_hard: :roflmao:

I’m hoping it will be on my desk within a day or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jim said:

I’m hoping it will be on my desk within a day or two.

That is a good news indeed and now you just need a (few) cup(s) of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim said:

I’m hoping it will be on my desk within a day or two.

I'm not jealous.. much. Looking forward to seeing the review and pics of the build process... when roughly do you think you'll have a review posted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Does the embargo date mean Jim is not allowed to publish the review before Aug 1st?

The current embargo date is indeed the 1st of August.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.