MOCs versus sets

[Dafgek81]

IMO LT sets can't compete with MOC models.

There is to much focus on making money at Lego.

AFOL designers don't have those restrictions and can make more realistic and better functioning models.

I do not buy the LT sets since the way to expensive D11, that one was overpriced and made me quit buying new sets

[PlopiNinetySix]

I see, good points here^

 

[Kumbbl]

Interesting topic…

 

I can't judge the current status, as I haven't done much with Lego in recent years. But up until 2017 I built quite a few mocs, some highly complex with expensive BI, from "well-known" builders. Most of them were fun and I would never have been able to design these models myself. But what I can do: evaluate the quality and thoughtfulness of solutions, components, drive trains, stability, intelligent use of certain parts, etc.

And there is actually a huge difference between most of the MoCers and official Lego sets. Even if there are some outliers in the sets, no question...

But there is (at least) one exception, which in my eyes also shows the difference, unfortunately an exception that at least doesn't seem to create technic MOCs anymore: Nathanael Kuipers (aka nkubate): who has ever built one of his MOCS, knows what true design quality is: if you think to yourself with every part: „damn, there is no better solution for this“ and building it always puts a grin on your face because you are flashed by the recognizable ingenuity of the solution, the part-use, the clarity, the structural stability and last but not least the simplicity - and simplicity is meant here as a big compliment. As St Exupéry said: "Perfection is not achieved when you can't add anything more, but when you can't leave anything out"

Nkubate designed his nevertheless complex and astonishing MOCs with exactly this in mind (recommendation: building his Predator supercar MOC from about 2016. Today maybe slightly outdated but a really very very satisfying and sometimes jaw dropping building with xperience). Really good Lego sets also follow this guiding principle.

Whereas many MOCers seem to follow the exact opposite of this wise quote of St. Exupéry.

And here it comes: Nathanael was an official Lego designer before his MOCer career...

To make a long story short: IMHO MOCs often have interesting functions and replicate real looks more precisely. But very often at the price of a really only sufficient and poor design quality when viewed “in the light of day“

With many Lego sets it is the other way around

Just my 2 ct

[PlopiNinetySix]

40 minutes ago, Kumbbl said:

Interesting topic…

 

I can't judge the current status, as I haven't done much with Lego in recent years. But up until 2017 I built quite a few mocs, some highly complex with expensive BI, from "well-known" builders. Most of them were fun and I would never have been able to design these models myself. But what I can do: evaluate the quality and thoughtfulness of solutions, components, drive trains, stability, intelligent use of certain parts, etc.

And there is actually a huge difference between most of the MoCers and official Lego sets. Even if there are some outliers in the sets, no question...

But there is (at least) one exception, which in my eyes also shows the difference, unfortunately an exception that at least doesn't seem to create technic MOCs anymore: Nathanael Kuipers (aka nkubate): who has ever built one of his MOCS, knows what true design quality is: if you think to yourself with every part: „damn, there is no better solution for this“ and building it always puts a grin on your face because you are flashed by the recognizable ingenuity of the solution, the part-use, the clarity, the structural stability and last but not least the simplicity - and simplicity is meant here as a big compliment. As St Exupéry said: "Perfection is not achieved when you can't add anything more, but when you can't leave anything out"

Nkubate designed his nevertheless complex and astonishing MOCs with exactly this in mind (recommendation: building his Predator supercar MOC from about 2016. Today maybe slightly outdated but a really very very satisfying and sometimes jaw dropping building with xperience). Really good Lego sets also follow this guiding principle.

Whereas many MOCers seem to follow the exact opposite of this wise quote of St. Exupéry.

And here it comes: Nathanael was an official Lego designer before his MOCer career...

40 minutes ago, Kumbbl said:

*To make a long story short: IMHO MOCs often have interesting functions and replicate real looks more precisely. But very often at the price of a really only sufficient and poor design quality when viewed “in the light of day“

With many Lego sets it is the other way around

 

Nice comparison :P

Btw, I feel like I've been living under a rock... never knew about Nkubate's MOCs; the Predator is a real beauty.

*Right, many MOCs tend to build freer and somewhat floppier designs since they're not sets. This doesn't apply to all MOCs, but I did see some.

Edited December 25, 2023 by PlopiNinetySix

[Divitis]

My 2 cents to the conversation, official sets -and more and morenso in recent yearsbuild at an angle. I've seen this being true in most sets I built both system and technic. MOCs seem content with 90° builds, that then get 'decorated'.

Maybe we need a class on trigonometry or something 

[howitzer]

10 hours ago, Divitis said:

My 2 cents to the conversation, official sets -and more and morenso in recent yearsbuild at an angle. I've seen this being true in most sets I built both system and technic. MOCs seem content with 90° builds, that then get 'decorated'.

Maybe we need a class on trigonometry or something 

This is true. Finding the correct angles is hard and requires either lots of calculations or a strong intuition built on lots and lots of experience, and for designers at TLG neither is an obstacle, while amateur builders tend to go the easy way and build mostly with right angles. Only the most skilled builders seem to manage to break free from the right angle cage in a meaningful way.

Some trigonometry resource to help with this would indeed be great.

[Lipko]

Also, in many cases MOCers tend to disregard research, I saw some huge mistakes ín even great MOCs, for example engine is at the wrong place...

[PlopiNinetySix]

18 hours ago, Divitis said:

My 2 cents to the conversation, official sets -and more and morenso in recent yearsbuild at an angle. I've seen this being true in most sets I built both system and technic. MOCs seem content with 90° builds, that then get 'decorated'.

Maybe we need a class on trigonometry or something 

Trigonometry is one of my favorite math subjects XD

That's actually a really interesting way of perspective^

5 hours ago, Lipko said:

Also, in many cases MOCers tend to disregard research, I saw some huge mistakes ín even great MOCs, for example engine is at the wrong place...

Right, while Lego also makes mistakes they have the licnese of the brand, tho that's unlikely of them to design inaccurate designs (although sometimes details are missing, both MOCs and TLG are prone to this).

[Divitis]

22 hours ago, PlopiNinetySix said:

Trigonometry is one of my favorite math subjects XD

That's actually a really interesting way of perspective^

I

 

On 12/28/2023 at 8:45 AM, howitzer said:

This is true. Finding the correct angles is hard and requires either lots of calculations or a strong intuition built on lots and lots of experience, and for designers at TLG neither is an obstacle, while amateur builders tend to go the easy way and build mostly with right angles. Only the most skilled builders seem to manage to break free from the right angle cage in a meaningful way.

Some trigonometry resource to help with this would indeed be great.

I reckon part of the problem is that MOCs are firstly designed digitally, and dealing with angles in Studio is a pain. We should ask for some apt features to be added, like 'orient towards pin' or 'calculate the diagonal'.

 

Any idea how to submit a feature request?

[howitzer]

5 hours ago, Divitis said:

I

 

I reckon part of the problem is that MOCs are firstly designed digitally, and dealing with angles in Studio is a pain. We should ask for some apt features to be added, like 'orient towards pin' or 'calculate the diagonal'.

 

Any idea how to submit a feature request?

I haven't really used Studio, but the pain of dealing with non-right angles in other similar software indeed makes it really difficult to work with designs involving them.