What do you think about modularity?

[jorgeopesi]

I read about this and I think that could be a good theme in part to rest a little from the dozer... I understand it like a way to build in separate phases that will be engaged together. In my beginings I hated it because it uses more parts and makes bigger MOCs but now I know well that it is the best way for people like me that do and redo a lot to not to lost a lot of time, then when you have finished the MOC you can eliminate the modularity and some parts if you want but to create MOCs it is essential IMO, well you will not need it if you like all you do but unlucky it is not my case. I have a lot of ideas about it but they will came with the comments I will read for sure. For example with more modular MOCs we could easy add new parts to old MOCs to increase its efficience.

[Erik Leppen]

I tend to sit half-way on the topic of modularity. I feel that when I strive for modularity, I get a more structured design, but going "all the way" tends to add too much superfluous parts and volume to a model. So I like if there is some distinction between sections, most importantly, that the chassis has a coherent design and adds strength, and functional modules can be joined to the chassis and provide the functions, but going beyond that and striving for "easy disassembly" would make things harder.

So yeah: modularity as a design goal or design criterium: good. Modularity as an actual result: I don't really feel the need for that, personally.

Also, a modular design usually makes instructions more coherent as well.

I'm on-and-off working on a model similar to 42082 all-terrain crane, because what I disliked about that set was that the instructions seem to lack any coherence. It looks a bit like a jumbled mess of parts - in the end it all works, but it's not clear where one thing ends and the next thing begins. So I try to do a redesign where at least the chassis is relatively easy to recognize among the rest, and it feels more streamlined right away. That's one thing I think modularity can achieve.

[Anio]

I'd say that modularity with Lego parts and Lego build is the equivalent of "Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease." with words and sentences.

Modularity is not simple to achieve, but it is what makes a build litterally "readable". Modularity makes the difference between a complex build and a complicated build.

I would say that very few Technic builders truely master modularity, even at TLG.

Time for @NKubate to jump in.

[Erik Leppen]

37 minutes ago, Anio said:

Modularity [..,] is what makes a build litterally "readable"

So true.

I think it was really well done in 8448.

[langko]

I think having at least a semi-modular approach is essential for efficient building. When I built the dark azure version of the Senna it was built very much like I would build as kid... Just added piece to piece to piece with no sense of modularity what so ever. I learnt to late that made everything next to impossible to change without pulling the whole thing apart. By the time I noticed there was a problem with something the issue was so deep in the model it was a nightmare. The solution was therefore adding more pieces to fix the issue, instead of fixing the root problem. The result was a largely heavy and inefficient model.

Second time round I've used a more modular approach and it had been much more successful. It is not fully modular in the sense that you just undo some pins and everything can come apart... but by undoing smaller areas, the model comes apart a lot more easily if required. The result is a build that is 400g lighter whilst being stronger and having more functions. I remember reading in the Chiron instructions that the designer rebuilt the car 100 times... If I had to completely strip the Senna 100 times and rebuild it, I think I would have given up   The semi-modularity approach 100% helped avoid that. Maybe if the Chiron was more modular the front suspension would have been easier to fix... Like the dark azure Senna by the time the Chiron would've been finished and you realise the issue, the root cause was so deep in the model it's impossible to fix. I can emphasise with the designer if he didn't want to pull the car apart for the 101th time...

On the flip side full modularity is super difficult to achieve and for me isn't necessarily worth doing just for the sake of having something that can easily come apart when finished. That said huge respect for those that can pull it off effectively, and it does add an extra wow factor.

[syclone]

I've disliked it when it was first made mainstream (once it was used in the supercar sets, many builders started adding it and emphasizing that the model is modular...). Nonetheless ended using it once myself - by accident - while making the instructions for my autozam (the rear section with the motors was pretty much a self-contained unit, and due to my inefficient building, the only way to build it was separately, and then "marry" the front section with the cabin floor to the rear section)

However, I've seen no reason to specifically add modularity into a build - it's going to get covered up anyway, and unless you're going for a fully modular experience with elements that you can substitute (like Sheepo's offroader platform, or the glorious 8448 "Street Sensation") it's the same as building it the normal way. Perhaps as pointed out above, some will prefer to have an experince of building X component and then adding it to the build, then making next component and adding it to the build... but that is for one to decide when making instructions, I don't have enough experienc to be able to make a solid chassis using separate modules, so I'll stick to prioritising functions and rigidity before modularity.

[MinusAndy]

I built my super car moc as it was in real life, ie a monocoque main body as one module, then added self contained gearbox, rear clamshell, body panels, engine and subframes. It seems to work well with cars. I have trouble marrying up inputs and outputs from each module though.

With my A10 I started building modules but there needed to be so much structure to keep it all stuff that I’ve had to combine functions with structural bracing so it didn’t really work in terms of modules as it’s 9 wide at the most so realistically some functions and shafts need to run in the outer skin or there just isn’t room.

It seems to me that I’m best focussing on the model and not whether it’s modular or not, though compartmentalising ideas into little self contained parts can help in terms of focussing what I’m doing.

I think there is something inherently appealing about building modules with the brains of people who like Lego as there is definitely an element of collecting components and organising stuff.

Modules look great on build diary presentations and proof of concept ideas too.

[T Lego]

I really like building modular. For me, it first started as an experiment and challenge to put myself to when designing my Centenario and I ended up mainly with positive feelings.

As a sum up of what already has been mentioned: it's convenient during the design process when endlessly revising and improving the model everywhere, it makes the assembly more interesting and satisfying (IMO) and making building instructions becomes naturally an easier task as well. Moreover it can perhabs become a bit bornig if you are constantly adding a few parts onto a larger build for page after page in comparison to building around a dozon individual components and 'bolting' them together with some pins and axles with stops. 

There are also builds out there who have a detachable bodywork as a single piece which is a completely different topic. It would be insane to have the intire bodywork of a supercar detached in matter of seconds, but I feel like that this inevitibly will compromise the bodywork itself to quite some extend. It seems more appropriate to do this on squarish vehicles as we've seen in Sheepo's Landrover. in other words, vehicles that don't require a complex network of panel mountings. 

Of course, modularity is by no means a necessity for a 'good' build, but it can really add something to the overal product on the condition that it doesn't noticably compromise the build. Doing this however, indeed requires some extra skill and a lot of extra effort. I found the result rewarding which is why I will continue to feature it in my future mocs.

Edited September 12, 2021 by T Lego

[Maaboo the Witch]

Modularity is great. It provides stopping points for big builds and relieves the pressure of getting one big build right. It also makes problems easier to resolve and takes away the whole "oh no, did I miss a part out?" concern.

[Gray Gear]

When I build my 1:8 Supercar MOCs I often modify or improve something I built earlier, so having the car come together and apart in big pieces is somewhat natural to me. But I don't know if that can really be called modularity, as this building style does not focus on disassembling the model again conviniently. 

A stiff body is very important to me, body flex is not acceptable. That means all the "modules" are reinforcing and supporting each other locking each other in place. That makes disassembly a bit tricky. There is a specific order in which the "modules" have to be removed.

[Jeroen Ottens]

I agree to most what is said. Designing in a modular way is easier and makes the model talk more coherently to the builder, but in the final model the modularity can be compromised to avoid bulky connections. I think the 8448 had the advantage of having a studfull frame. There are so many more compact ways to connect modules in that system.

1 hour ago, T Lego said:

There are also builds out there who have a detachable bodywork as a single piece which is a completely different topic. It would be insane to have the intire bodywork of a supercar detached in matter of seconds, but I feel like that this inevitibly will compromise the bodywork itself to quite some extend. It seems more appropriate to do this on squarish vehicles as we've seen in Sheepo's Landrover. in other words, vehicles that don't require a complex network of panel mountings.

This is indeed a severe challenge. The 42056 has a mod that can achieve this and I only managed this once (Il toro azzurro has detachable bodywork). Both of these cars are still relatively boxy, coincidently both inspired on designs of the 50/60's...

[jorgeopesi]

But we have MOCs where the modularity would be not the best option, for example a trial truck, you can build the WIP in a modular way but once finished I would eliminate all the modular parts doing it lighter and even more strong.

[nerdsforprez]

14 hours ago, Anio said:

I'd say that modularity with Lego parts and Lego build is the equivalent of "Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease." with words and sentences.

Modularity is not simple to achieve, but it is what makes a build litterally "readable". Modularity makes the difference between a complex build and a complicated build.

I would say that very few Technic builders truely master modularity, even at TLG.

Time for @NKubate to jump in.

I appreciate these comments here, but am afraid I misinterpreted.  Re-reading them I think I understand better.  

But when you say "Modularity makes the difference between a complex build and a complicated build" are you saying that modularity is related to the former or the latter? And I believe you mean "complex" in positive overtones and "complicated" in negative.  Is this correct? 

[Anio]

3 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

And I believe you mean "complex" in positive overtones and "complicated" in negative.  Is this correct? 

It is correct.

I see that modularity is being discussed a lot with supercars in mind. But it can be achieved in virtually all kind of vehicle.

I generally tend to disagree with the statement that modularity adds parts and make the build more dense. I actually think the opposite.

When properly achieved, the modularity streamlines the working and the engineering in the model. Cause you can't make nice modularity if your modules are a mess.

I may sound like a broken record, but I think that modularity is one of the aspect of simplexity. Simplexity is sometimes mindblowing. Sometimes, a few liftarms can achieve beautiful results (doors of Lambo Sian 42115 for example). I think it is fascinating how a complex thing can be achieved with so little because the builder found the perfect part adjustement and removed everything that was superfluous. Sometimes, I am litterally out of words when I have that perfect engineering feeling.

Recently, I built the Elf Club House 10275. I just couldn't believe how the designer deconstructed the various steps of the wafles dispenser mechanism with just some boring tiles...

Antoine de Saint Exupery said : "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing left to take away".

[Gray Gear]

A design where nothing is left to take away also has no strength to spare. Once you surpass the planned load by just a little it can break. Modular design is nice, but it can also cause weakpoints where the model can flex or even break.

LEGO is great at designing Models where nothing can be taken away, look at the Flexari. It can do what it was designed for, sit on a shelf and do nothing. But once you start pick it up and play with it it will start to bend and feel cheap 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Gray Gear

[Anio]

33 minutes ago, Gray Gear said:

A design where nothing is left to take away also has no strength to spare. Once you surpass the planned load by just a little it can break. Modular design is nice, but it can also cause weakpoints where the model can flex or even break.

You missed my point.

A design that is so "optimised" that it would have weak poinst would just not be optimised.

[Gray Gear]

24 minutes ago, Anio said:

You missed my point.

A design that is so "optimised" that it would have weak poinst would just not be optimised.

I did not. I am not happy with the "nothing left to take away" part, as it implies to remove any material not stictly needed. Plan your designs with some reserves in mind was all I was trying to say. The design has to hold up in the real world, so think of that when building, especially when you build digital at first.

Modular design contradicts strength to some degree (in theory), as it introduces potential weakpoints where the modules meet up. It might not matter depending on the weight and position of the model, but when I see some big frames joined up with just like 4 3L pins I'd rather have a single piece.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Gray Gear

[Scoar Sonander]

Sometimes modularity can help redesigning a model, but also increasing strength in a chassis. If the different sections fit together very well then it might help making a MOC asap (as sturdy as possible). I can understand that this form of modularity is sometimes hard to achieve, so it's perceived that modularity makes a model more flexible. Again, it depends on the builder and the time they want to spend trying to get perfect modularity. 

[Gray Gear]

@Scoar Sonander I agree, there are plenty of strong solutions that are only possible if you build them in one big piece first and put them on the model afterwards. Given the right amount of connections a Modular design can be a lot stronger than a "normal" one. But more connections make disassembling again more of a hassle. 

 

The question for me is what a "Modular Design" even is.

Is the only requirement that the model has to be assembled out of big Modules, or does the model have to be easily diasassembled into these Modules as well? 

[Hrafn]

Scale may be a consideration as well.  In my current 15-wide project, it is semi modular; true modularity would probably add bulk since at this scale even a one-stud change is noticeable.  In a really large model I would definitely want to adopt a modular approach for the most part.  In between, it depends.

[nerdsforprez]

5 hours ago, Anio said:

It is correct.

I see that modularity is being discussed a lot with supercars in mind. But it can be achieved in virtually all kind of vehicle.

I generally tend to disagree with the statement that modularity adds parts and make the build more dense. I actually think the opposite.

When properly achieved, the modularity streamlines the working and the engineering in the model. Cause you can't make nice modularity if your modules are a mess.

I may sound like a broken record, but I think that modularity is one of the aspect of simplexity. Simplexity is sometimes mindblowing. Sometimes, a few liftarms can achieve beautiful results (doors of Lambo Sian 42115 for example). I think it is fascinating how a complex thing can be achieved with so little because the builder found the perfect part adjustement and removed everything that was superfluous. Sometimes, I am litterally out of words when I have that perfect engineering feeling.

Recently, I built the Elf Club House 10275. I just couldn't believe how the designer deconstructed the various steps of the wafles dispenser mechanism with just some boring tiles...

Antoine de Saint Exupery said : "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing to add, but when there is nothing left to take away".

Thank you for the explanation.  This interests me for several reasons but perhaps most significantly because this is how I feel about writing, which I spend about 90% of my professional time doing (technical writing, I know next-to-nothing about creative writing).   

I have no training in anything related to STEM or Design.  I build with Lego because it relaxes my verbal abilities and stimulates that which I virtually work very little with; my non-verbal abilities.  Therefore I find fascinating how this relates to that which I do know; writing. 

As a trainee one of the best lessons learned was to be parsimonious in writing.  Say as much as possible with as little words as possible.  Large vocabulary words should only be used when they convey a meaning that would otherwise take many words.   I often write long but accurate; editing for me is simply, like your quote from Antoine de Saint Exupery, a process of eliminating as much as I can without altering meaning.  

Oddly enough, I feel good writing is also modular.   Each paragraph should make sense in its own right; and when combined altogether generate a greater, more expanded meaning.  

Edited September 12, 2021 by nerdsforprez

[nerdsforprez]

4 hours ago, Gray Gear said:

I did not. I am not happy with the "nothing left to take away" part, as it implies to remove any material not stictly needed. Plan your designs with some reserves in mind was all I was trying to say. The design has to hold up in the real world, so think of that when building, especially when you build digital at first.

Modular design contradicts strength to some degree (in theory), as it introduces potential weakpoints where the modules meet up. It might not matter depending on the weight and position of the model, but when I see some big frames joined up with just like 4 3L pins I'd rather have a single piece.

I have to admit, your interpretation seems odd.  

"to take away" so as to make something break or fragile is not the meaning in the quote "to take away."  You are being too literal.  That is like the analogy I provided earlier about taking away from writing but also taking away so as to distract or dilute meaning.  

I think the intended meaning behind the quote can be summarized in the phrase "do not leave anything superfluous".  If additional bricks are in a build but they add needed strength then although there is something that can be taken away the additional bricks have meaning therefore they should remain .  

TLG is incredibly poor at this.   Many times, especially in some of the recent large sets (42082, 83, etc...) there were many superfluous parts.  So many that it is thought they did so to artificially inflate the part count.  AFOLs had these sets minimized, quite quickly, with fewer parts without compromising strength or functions. 

[Gray Gear]

@nerdsforprez If you see adding a good amount of bricks of bricks to make something more strong for peace of mind (even though half would probably do the the job) compatible with that quote then maybe I am just too dumb lmao

Let's just agree on that and move on, I don't feel like discussing the quote further will really end in something worthwhile. 

Simple and elegant design is cool, and I love those moments when stuff finally just fits together like it was meant to be  But I myself would rather use 50 bricks instead of 5 if it can make the end result look a tiny bit more accurate (without looking cluttered mind you). That isn't really simple design, but I prefer a detailed system solution where others would just slap on a panel and call it a day 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Gray Gear

[dr_spock]

Modularity could be useful for team speed build contests at AFOL conventions.  It could be easier to divide up sections of the set to different members of the team.

[Jundis]

On 9/12/2021 at 1:28 PM, jorgeopesi said:

But we have MOCs where the modularity would be not the best option, for example a trial truck, you can build the WIP in a modular way but once finished I would eliminate all the modular parts doing it lighter and even more strong.

I think it really depends mostly on size and also the intention of the built.

For a small build it makes no sense, as many components are both for structural integrity and appearance.

For medium and large builds modularity really helps to prevent a complete redo of the model if something doesn't work out as intended. Also there is way stronger tendency that some assemblies are for structure, function or appearance.

But when it comes to low weight (or of perfection in economical use of as few parts as possible like your builds @jorgeopesi ;-) ) modularity has no place.

In the past two years I work with way more assemblies than in the beginning.