Maaboo35

42131 - CAT D11 Bulldozer

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

No, that update delay was beyond ridiculous and really shows up the pitfalls of this system.

No matter now though, so let's see what we've got here. I like the fact that there's a test option for midway through the build. That would have been extremely handy for 42114.

Edited by Maaboo35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TeamThrifty said:

..and great news! Its not £419 anymore, already available with £60 off at £359... 15% off is a good start.

That is way more reasonable! At least it doesn't cost nearly the same as a PS5 now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bartybum said:

SURELY you realise how ridiculous this logic is, right?

Well I don't give myself headache about something you can live without :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 1gor said:

Well I don't give myself headache about something you can live without :wink:

My thoughts exactly. I know it’s stupid that the app wasn’t available, but there are worse things in life. I try to live on the bright side :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, those that look at a set as a parts source for MOCs (such as me) will care even less for dedicated control apps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

No, that update delay was beyond ridiculous and really shows up the pitfalls of this system.

No matter now though, so let's see what we've got here. I like the fact that there's a test option for midway through the build. That would have been extremely handy for 42114.

I suppose they found a real mayor bug in it and worked their Fischertechnik off to solve that.

Share this post


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

My thoughts exactly. I know it’s stupid that the app wasn’t available, but there are worse things in life. I try to live on the bright side :thumbup:

Sometimes after some posts I remember that my grandmother was right; she said the there are 2 kinds of people: the one who grew up and second who just get older. So some of our members react as spoiled brats ... Before complaining I always ask myself if I could do this better (alone or with help of some team)... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 1gor said:

So some of our members react as spoiled brats ...

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

(just to confirm, in case there's any doubt, i agree completely!!:roflmao:)

4 hours ago, AVCampos said:

Also, those that look at a set as a parts source for MOCs (such as me) will care even less for dedicated control apps.

Correct.. I love that i can use different apps to code a controller for my mocs. Its a brilliant addition to lego. Lack of the app is pretty low key really....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TeamThrifty But it does say something when the set costs 450 bones but some random guy can develop a contol app in his free time preferrable over the App LEGO provides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Gray Gear said:

preferrable over the App LEGO provides.

Highly subjective. I can write code to control the motors, i enjoy it and in many ways is preferable to me... however, its not a commercial product. It is no where near as polished or debugged as the TLG app which despite the moans, will have taken hundreds of hours of dev time... and my app wouldn't be preferable to the vast majority of users in 100 different countries around the world.

Its the same argument that often arises - Mocs/Apps built by us are not subject to the marketing/financial/demographic constraints that TLG are, therefore its not really a valid comparison. But, moaners love to moan, valid or not!!

Edited by TeamThrifty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 1gor said:

Before complaining I always ask myself if I could do this better (alone or with help of some team)... 

I won't address others, to be honest I didn't read the whole topic, but I'd like to note that the mobile apps made to control powered up are made with some stupid mistakes that could have been avoided if they had anyone that actually had experience in making games for mobile phones. For those specific details that are crucial to the user experience, I could do it better, it's just a matter of knowing how games handle inputs on touch screens.

I can't say anything about the control+ app at this point, I haven't launched it for some time now, but the current version of powered UP app still has the control sliders, like one of most used, implemented incorrectly and this is something that literally feels to me like few hours of coding to change. What's wrong with the sliders?

If you are using touch screen for a longer time, you're fingers are sweating because you're holding a device that is emitting heat through the screen. Over time the touch screen starts to loose your touch because of this and the app has frames with no input info.

What mobile games do is that they either put the slider on a position where you press your finger without sliding it there from the middle, or they allow to start anew anywhere you want to drag the slider so you don't need to look at the controls if you're focused on the actual game. They also sometimes ignore the single frames without input accounting for such touch screen errors.

But what powered UP apps do? You need to find the middle of the slider, click on it and drag it to where you want it. ON AN APP THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT WHILE YOU'RE USING IT AS A REMOTE FOR YOUR MODEL!

So my guess is that TLG doesn't really have a team of mobile devs with experience in mobile touch screen games, to work on the app, they just may be skilled in coding the controllers support/communication.

For the record - I don't have this set and I'm not sulking over the situation, it's just another point showing the quality of support on those apps.

And by the way - to those who are waiting for their models to work - the "halo products", the most expensive ones in the lineup, often have worst support after release just because they are the most expensive and there's the least amount of clients to get angry about them, so have fun waiting and looking at your static RC model :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, 1gor said:

Well I don't give myself headache about something you can live without :wink:

I guess that gives me a free pass to find where you live and steal $400AUD worth of Lego from you.

Like yes of course it’s not the end of the world, but it effectively shifts the burden of blame on consumers for a multi billion dollar company’s poor performance.

6 hours ago, 1gor said:

the one who grew up and second who just get older. So some of our members react as spoiled brats ... Before complaining I always ask myself if I could do this better (alone or with help of some team)... 

On the contrary, I could just as easily argue that there are people here who are more than willing to perpetuate the cycle of getting ripped off on a sub par product, and others who actively express discontent at the product being subpar. We’re not spoiled brats, we just expect the giant multi billion dollar party to uphold their end of the bargain when we give them money.

You’re also likely not qualified to answer the question of whether you could do better than TLC, because there’s no pragmatic way to tell that doesn’t involve plenty of speculation.

Edited by Bartybum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SaperPL said:

What mobile games do is that they either put the slider on a position where you press your finger without sliding it there from the middle, or they allow to start anew anywhere you want to drag the slider so you don't need to look at the controls if you're focused on the actual game. They also sometimes ignore the single frames without input accounting for such touch screen errors.

So my guess is that TLG doesn't really have a team of mobile devs with experience in mobile touch screen games, to work on the app, they just may be skilled in coding the controllers support/communication.

This has nothing to do with "what mobile games do". Mobile games don't have customizeable interfaces, in PU, there is not "the slider". Constantly changing inputs is just one of many usecases.

As far as I know, PU (not sure which part of it) is outsourced to a small danish software company -  that may be the reason interface features take so long.

It took TLG months to support the large angular mambo Nr 5 motor - for me that's the far bigger problem. C+ ist just a nice, themed addition. (although the Krokodil interface is in PU... why does C+ exist exactly? xD I guess adding simple things to make complicated things moe simple just makes them more complicated)

@1gor

About prefering old pf:

That's why I don't understand why TLG doesn't add a simple bundle option or information for RC technic sets and the PU remote. On one hand they have a super customizeable motor, sensor, app, remote combination - on the other hand they call the technic sets "C+" and don't tell anyone about the options... And if they have a remote: why not add a pre-defined button mapping in the C+-profile, so you can buy two remotes for the larger models, if you want to. Of course you would still have to use the smartphone as hub, but that would atleast fit the "combine and configure anything with anything"-idea.

Share this post


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

This has nothing to do with "what mobile games do". Mobile games don't have customizeable interfaces, in PU, there is not "the slider". Constantly changing inputs is just one of many usecases.

It has very much to do with what mobile games do, because you have an interface element that you can't physically feel, and you want the user to look where the action is, and not where the interface element is. This use case is the same between mobile games and the mobile remote control. It doesn't matter whether you change the input constantly or anything else: you want an interface that you can use without looking, and mobile games offer a learning opportunity for what those inputs can look like. Remember there's tons of different types of mobile games too, each with their own set of inputs.

Also, thanks @SaperPL, I learned something new about mobile games today :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

It has very much to do with what mobile games do, because you have an interface element that you can't physically feel, and you want the user to look where the action is, and not where the interface element is. This use case is the same between mobile games and the mobile remote control. It doesn't matter whether you change the input constantly or anything else: you want an interface that you can use without looking, and mobile games offer a learning opportunity for what those inputs can look like. Remember there's tons of different types of mobile games too, each with their own set of inputs.

Also, thanks @SaperPL, I learned something new about mobile games today :)

There is no game, that has a customizeable interface with the function you described, the example for "how PU should have done it" simply does not exist. Different types of mobile games equals different but specific C+/PU-models, not the customizeable interface of PU - and C+ actually offers simpler interfaces you don't have to look at for simpler models (and btw: you usually look at the mobile game while playing).

The argument "physical remote so you don't have to look at it" is btw. only half true. You don't have to look at controls, if there is haptic feedback and you do not have to move your hand. If you combine multiple PF/PU remotes for larger models, you definitely have to look at the remote.

Share this post


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

This has nothing to do with "what mobile games do". Mobile games don't have customizeable interfaces, in PU, there is not "the slider". Constantly changing inputs is just one of many usecases.

 

25 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

There is no game, that has a customizeable interface with the function you described, the example for "how PU should have done it" simply does not exist. Different types of mobile games equals different but specific C+/PU-models, not the customizeable interface of PU - and C+ actually offers simpler interfaces you don't have to look at for simpler models (and btw: you usually look at the mobile game while playing).

I know that the interface is customizable and that the example to move the centre of input just where the user touches doesn't apply in this scenario. But the slider should work when I touch the either end of it without going to the centre. This doesn't have anything to do with customisation as long as this whole control stays in one place.

29 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

The argument "physical remote so you don't have to look at it" is btw. only half true. You don't have to look at controls, if there is haptic feedback and you do not have to move your hand. If you combine multiple PF/PU remotes for larger models, you definitely have to look at the remote.

Yes, for additional functions apart driving, that may be true one the touch screen if have a lot of that. But for an entry use case is having 4 motors so two sliders + two functions having two sliders + two buttons somewhere in the middle on the bottom of the screen, would be doable to not look. Also if you're used to controller, you don't need to look at it for those. Anyway my point was mostly about driving because you should/would be looking at the model at that point and if touch screen disconnects and forces you to look at controls to find the slider again, it's just bad design.

And I know that you can define controls with other types of input, but that's not my point. My point is they haven't fixed a simple slider to jump to position where you touch without grabbing the knob at the middle (with back to zero) or wherever you left it at - that is something that should be a pretty simple change. And also while I know there are power users, not everyone wants to play the coding game, and prefer to build something physically, so they just pick some simple slider controls if they want control over the speed and steering and afterwards they end up with brick controller 2 instead of this.

Share this post


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

I know that the interface is customizable and that the example to move the centre of input just where the user touches doesn't apply in this scenario. But the slider should work when I touch the either end of it without going to the centre. This doesn't have anything to do with customisation as long as this whole control stays in one place.

That's true. They do this in predefined (but still programmable and therefore useable) profiles but not in customized GUIs. Looks like a "design descision".

4 minutes ago, SaperPL said:

And I know that you can define controls with other types of input, but that's not my point. My point is they haven't fixed a simple slider to jump to position where you touch without grabbing the knob at the middle (with back to zero) or wherever you left it at - that is something that should be a pretty simple change. And also while I know there are power users, not everyone wants to play the coding game, and prefer to build something physically, so they just pick some simple slider controls if they want control over the speed and steering and afterwards they end up with brick controller 2 instead of this.

Next update should introduce scaling and rotating (finally....) this should resolve some inconveniences. And jumping to a position can be bad if you don't look at the controls - full power by accident :D

I'm not arguing against controllers. A customizeable PU-like interface with gamepad support can be extremely good (mindstorms has that). It's just that a "physical remote" by itself does not solve every problem. A gamepad looks like it does for a reason - and is still far from perfect when it comes to controlling trains for example and keeping the train/dozer at any constant speed without holding the button the whole time in the same position... touch slider without returning to zero -> perfect addition in those cases.

Personal opinion from personal experience: Combining the smartdevice with PU remote works very well for almost every model, except: Fast cars and if you need more than two analog inputs at the same time.

I think if they would make it easier to buy PU remotes and add some kind of "building instruction" for a model and PU a lot more people would use it and the perception would be better - without changing the software itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, SaperPL said:

Anyway my point was mostly about driving because you should/would be looking at the model at that point and if touch screen disconnects and forces you to look at controls to find the slider again, it's just bad design.

.

This is my biggest gripe with PU, lol, not the only one but the main one. I suppose many have no issue with it but I find it extremely frustrating, so much so that I have shelved my one single PU set and am currently working on a PF moc with dual remotes and 4 motors. I never have to even look at the remote all controls work seamlessly, just by feel.

So much more fun.

Edited by Johnny1360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some thoughts . . rather than fight to narrow and hopefully improve the looks . . what about cheating a little and stretching the model by say 5 studs in length offering possibilities for ripper motors, and if it helps also add a couple of studs to the overall height to maintain proportions.
The cab seat is lost in black . . . and the railings are way to heavy . . . . 

Just built it using older grey treads and feel it looks better

Yes I agree . .  manual ladder and get rid of the drive chain

As for the track to ground length . . this really needs looking into&page=3

I don't like the blue pin ends . .  so I've tried to use black where I can but the little axel to pin ones remain as they are so expensive

Unable to post photo for some reason . . .  but these are just my initial thoughts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jon hirst said:

...Just built it using older grey treads and feel it looks better....

...Unable to post photo for some reason . . .

Hey!
You can host the images on an external site, and post a link to them here. For example, www.imgur.com or flickr.
I would like to see the grey-tread version with your pin changes too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now available for £324.... £100 below rrp. Surely the loudest voices about the high price should be equally loud about this excellent turn of events... No? Is that not how it works.....:wall:

Another £25 and i'll buy it. Want it to start with a '2' just cos it feels better :roflmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TeamThrifty said:

Want it to start with a '2' just cos it feels better 

I might sell you mine for £2000, just to make you feel better. :grin:

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.