Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, I_Igor said:

The only other place could really be under hood and cab could be lower in that case

If I would build something like this I'd try to put it upside down in the bottom below the cab and lead the drive axle over it. But let's wait and see, I don't think I can do better than any official designer anyways...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mkbryant said:

My first attempt at modeling a set from a single picture of a catalog page:

Thanks for sharing!

That's a realy huge dump-bed...  The XL motor will probably give up on slight inclines when the truck is fully loaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the cab could be easily 1 (but even 2) studs lower, thus more proportional to the real thing. Probably than the bed was the design constraint, but honestly a tad taller bed would hurt less, than the final product. At least for me. Probably an easy fix though.

Untitled.png

 

Edited by agrof
added pic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, agrof said:

So the cab could be easily 1 (but even 2) studs lower, thus more proportional to the real thing. Probably than the bed was the design constraint, but honestly a tad taller bed would hurt less, than the final product. At least for me. Probably an easy fix though.

 

Exactly. Or maybe even leave it as it is, but add some plates on the bonnet to make if more "curved", so the cab height gets decreased from the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2020 at 11:59 AM, Erik Leppen said:

Here's a very quick imperfect edit trying to improve the proportions of the photo.

42114_edit.jpg

 

I hope this side view doesn't show the actuators at full extension, since the tilt angle of the box seems a little smaller than real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it quite weird that the load bearing axle the accurator sits on is rotating with the 20t gear, why not use the free spinning 20t gear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ivan_M said:

I find it quite weird that the load bearing axle the accurator sits on is rotating with the 20t gear, why not use the free spinning 20t gear?

The gear needs to hold the axle in place as well. All of holes that that axle passes through are pin holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

The gear needs to hold the axle in place as well. All of holes that that axle passes through are pin holes.

You could put a bush in there though. No need to use a gear to hold the axle in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, howitzer said:

You could put a bush in there though. No need to use a gear to hold the axle in place.

Exactly, makes no sense why they use normal gear here, it just adds unnecessary friction. And if they were worried about axle slipping out, they could use a 5x5L axle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone played with the idea that in this set we possibly get printed parts? The mudguard print is confimed, so why not for all other parts. I mean, it is the flagship like UCS with high price point.

Share this post


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

Has anyone played with the idea that in this set we possibly get printed parts? The mudguard print is confimed, so why not for all other parts. I mean, it is the flagship like UCS with high price point.

Nope, there's stickers. You can see that the fan cover on the curved panel at the front is too smooth for it to be anything else, and the same goes for the "A60H" on the 3x11 panel on the dump bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this model is rather boring for a flagship, nothing new here, no new parts and not that innovative. Maybe the building process is boring as well especially the dumb. What makes this model a flagship. TLG has to surprise us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

But this model is rather boring for a flagship, nothing new here, no new parts and not that innovative. Maybe the building process is boring as well especially the dumb. What makes this model a flagship. TLG has to surprise us.

it's a volvo dumper :pir-love:. That's reason enough.

Share this post


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

nothing new here

Horizontal C+ motor. Plus a number of cool yellow recolours.

1 hour ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

TLG has to surprise us.

Every time? I'm not sure about that. The first point and this one imply that TLG should be making loads of new parts, which nearly sunk them in the first place.

28 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

it's a volvo dumper :pir-love:. That's reason enough.

To be honest, this is the stance I'm adopting. Would be nice if we had a B-model though. Every Volvo set up to now has had one, and I don't think that that should change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

But this model is rather boring for a flagship...

Isn't Lamborghini a flagship of 2020?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Parazels said:

Isn't Lamborghini a flagship of 2020?

No, the flagship ist the august model. Lambo 42115 is the UCS model with one number higher like 42055 (flagship) to 42056 and 42082 (flagship) to 42083

Edited by Timorzelorzworz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

No, the flagship ist the august model. Lambo 42115 is the UCS model with one number higher like 42055 (flagship) to 42056 and 42082 (flagship) to 42083

True. Although this is the first such year in which the flagship is considerably smaller than the UCS set (in terms of part count anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is just a matter of time when we see sensors in Technic models, similar to the Boost or Spike ones. Maybe each flagship introduces something new, this one the new motor, another years one maybe a sensor. It is a bit waste of opportunities to left one port of the hub unused and uncontrollable with the own C+ app. I guess many owners want to add a headlight in the fourth port, but cannot control this with the app, so an own profile with third party app or PU app is needed. That's a bit too bad. It would be even better in this price point, when the fourth port becomes fully useable with the official C+ app.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

I think it is just a matter of time when we see sensors in Technic models, similar to the Boost or Spike ones. Maybe each flagship introduces something new, this one the new motor, another years one maybe a sensor. It is a bit waste of opportunities to left one port of the hub unused and uncontrollable with the own C+ app. I guess many owners want to add a headlight in the fourth port, but cannot control this with the app, so an own profile with third party app or PU app is needed. That's a bit too bad. It would be even better in this price point, when the fourth port becomes fully useable with the official C+ app.

Adding an option for a light in the Control+ app would be cool, but then people would want to control another motor, or a sensor, etc. Control+ is meant to provide you with a stock experience, and the Powered Up app is there will be there for customization. The main question - how much time does TLG need to catch up with Control+ and give us a flexible, customizable environment in the PU app?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kbalage said:

how much time does TLG need to catch up with Control+ and give us a flexible, customizable environment in the PU app?

I do not think that we will get a major update, all things needed are there - custom controls (even limited) and multible hub support (great). The strange thing is more, that hardly anyone does not really use it. For customers, its seems too "complex" to build programs and controls, and it requires indeed some excercise. But at the end of the day, all is possible in PU app.

Having a hub with one or two ports spare screames to adding lights, but is unfortunatlely not easy to do. This is the main restriction in the entire C+ system, also such Technic models are not longer published to build or customize own things. Even Grohl said he has to use a third party app to control his 42100 snow groomer alternate model, so it is a bit a shame when a designer cannot use a official Lego app for own builds. Lego is made to build things over an over again and let your creativity blown, but with more and more C+ models, this creativity is blown away. All those models are not made for building own things, so the question is, it is still Lego? In the 42114, we get a simple model for 250 EUR that is neither rebuildable nor customizable.

Edited by Timorzelorzworz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

I do not think that we will get a major update, all things needed are there - custom controls (even limited) and multible hub support (great). The strange thing is more, that hardly anyone does not really use it. For customers, its seems too "complex" to build programs and controls, and it requires indeed some excercise. But at the end of the day, all is possible in PU app.

I'm sure we won't get everything in a single update but a mid-level interface with less coding and customization is definitely needed. The PU team knows that and they work on it, and will roll out the new features gradually. People don't use the app because for the majority it is too complex and there's no documentation, but these things will change with time. Time is a critical factor here - if they need another 2-3 years to make an easy to use environment complete then customers won't wait and a 3rd party app can easily steal the show. 

Share this post


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

how much time does TLG need to catch up with Control+ and give us a flexible, customizable environment in the PU app?

My guess is that TLG will use 3 App platforms:

A) Control+ app purely for predefined original sets; to avoid kids making mistakes at any time. Interesting to learn if the App will remain responsive in loading... over 10yrs with 30 profiles in it by then....

B) PoweredUp app is purely for programming and education. Fun to do I must admit.

C) A new App will be launched that will fill-in the gap between A) and B) and having the same UX as for instance the Brick Controller-2 app, including game-pad compatibility.

It has all to do with product roadmaps, development efforts, budgets and target audience. Time will learn.

In the end, PU will succeed PF.... although I have the same feeling today that PF gives more..... but it will be a dead end in time. PU has much more functionalities, and is (will become more) fun!!

 

PS: side-question, but ON topic for this thread. Does the Volvo has the planetary gears wheel hubs as used in the 42099? Seams logical to do.

Edited by designer-han

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, designer-han said:

My guess is that TLG will use 3 App platforms:

PS: side-question, but ON topic for this thread. Does the Volvo has the planetary gears wheel hubs as used in the 42099? Seams logical to do.

I don't think, there will be 3 apps. PU will be updated with an customizeable interface and pre-defined blocks for standard-function. It's only a matter of time. Next update will be released with the 10277 Corocdile. @kbalage in the interview you did with the procuct owner of PU, he indicated a few things, so I hope we will see some progress.

No the Volvo does not use planetary gears, it uses portal axles (I'm pretty sure there will be no front-suspension, therefore the new Hubs would be rather unsuitable. rear suspension: we will see and hope for the best :X) .

Edited by Gimmick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2020 at 8:58 AM, AVCampos said:

I think it's not a subjective opinion when I say that PF was not perfect; if anything else, because of the outdated infrared-based communications.

Anyway, the C+ hub is slightly shorter, wider and taller than a PF AA box. Given that it replaces one battery box and two IR receivers (which, granted, can be positioned elsewhere and avoid having the bulk all in one place) plus includes an accelerometer/gyro combo and has the possibility open for a rechargeable pack instead of AAs, in my opinion this is a fair trade-off.

Untitled.thumb.png.c1de9f4338b90481a3fc0c5bac40191b.png

True, but the Control+ system doesn't have an option for a smaller battery like the PF rechargeable or AAA boxes.

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.