nerdsforprez

Eurobricks Counts
  • Content count

    1624
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nerdsforprez

  • Birthday 09/08/1978

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://mocpages.com/home.php/100020

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Technic! Also like SW UCS and Mecha genres

Extra

  • Country
    Milky Way

Recent Profile Visitors

2375 profile views
  1. nerdsforprez

    42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

    I also think that it is imporant to remeber that the relationship between piece count and scale are not linear. Difference between, say, 1/10 scale vs versus 1/8 scale is approximately double the piece count. Take for example paul b's vampire gt versus sheepos mustang (which really other than the transmission, was not a dense build). Approx 1700 pieces versus 4000 respectively.
  2. nerdsforprez

    42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

    Not a waste of my time at all. I am in the market for this set, but on the fence right now. I want to get as many opinions as I can. I likely will eventually succumb. I generally don't care about the static nature of a set. It could be the crappiest design ever made. But if there are many parts I want, or combined with the actual model a cool B model, or even C, or I envision other cool MOCs others will come up with using primarily the set in question then I will typically get the set. In a nutshell, I try to envision the future of a set, not what it is at the time of purchasing it. Case in point is both 42056 and 083. At least on this site (not general public) - I don't think either was a smashing hit. However, others have created awesome builds primarily using the colors/pieces from the sets, certainly the tires for a wheelbase, and the "pimp your ***" version of both models has been super fun. I purchased both, and have not regretted the decision. However, if it were not for all the modifications, other MOCs, etc. I would have been very disappointed. In other words, if Lego were not Lego, and only models. Disappointment. But because they are Lego. No disappointment. I get this is somewhat a circular argument here.... technically, every set can become a parts pack for some cool build. But I guess that is how I see Lego, period. An object of circularity, if nothing more.
  3. nerdsforprez

    42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

    I'd be much more interested in why you think the set was not worth it rather than hearing how much Lego you own......
  4. nerdsforprez

    [WIP] Rough terrain crane [Nearly finished!!]

    Since when did that stop the AFOL community ????
  5. nerdsforprez

    [WIP] Rough terrain crane [Nearly finished!!]

    Why do you say your project has lost relevance? 42082, IMO, was still just released, and a moc to compare it against is still highly relevant!
  6. nerdsforprez

    [WIP] how to create an arc

    I saw the engines and thought of this project I did a few years ago. You could actually make this thing go! But in all seriousness, its great you gave images of the engines. They look really nice. But perhaps you could provide renders, sketches, etc. of what you have in mind for the lower half of the fuselage. Because based on your post, that is what you are using the 1/4 curves for. Perhaps it would give us a better idea of how to help. B/c technically, the 3/11 curved panels are a quarter of a circle......
  7. nerdsforprez

    42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

    Agree. Actually, I don't think his video showed the capabilities very well at all. That is not how cranes lift. Funny, I remember when 42009 came out there was a slew of youtubers, who got lots of views, but lifted the same way as this guy. With the actuators. While the video itself is quite cringe-worthy, I do think it shows something important. As mentioned, the video already had like 54,000 views and people for the most part are liking it. This goes to show that I still think the main audience for Technic are not a very technically-sound bunch. Most of what we argue on this site, like pendular axles for the crane, ackerman steering for our cars, etc. - most people, even those that purchase Technic are not privy to. Sadly enough, it is exactly why I don't think many of the voices on this site are heard in terms of improving sets......
  8. nerdsforprez

    42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

    Perhaps from a AFOL POV. There are plenty, perhaps younger folks in the target population for this set, who will see this set as a huge set forward. Many will view using the new ring gears (first introduced by BWE) for the turntable as a step forward. Remember, that was one of the biggest complaints for 42009. Couldn't lift anything without looking like it was going to topple over. The problem wasn't so much in the boom but rather in the turntable. This set, while still with its flaws - resolves that issue. Its funny how sometimes we define "function" - it seems like it is uniformly defined as doing tons of different operations - even if those operations don't perform all that well. Hell, we even consider opening doors, etc. as "functions." In real life cranes, supercars, and many other vehicles don't have many diverse operations. Supercars, they just go really fast. Cranes, they lift stuff. Their "function" comes not so much in the operation itself, but in the manner in which they do it. There is alot of interesting engineering behind this - don't miss it. Not saying this crane matches that, but sometimes I do think we need to scrutinize our definition of "functional"
  9. nerdsforprez

    42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

    And if we erase the 3-400 "fluff" pieces that we have already discussed, that are not really part of the set (hub caps, tool box, building walls) then we really don't have too much of a piece count gap. I don't dispute that TLG engaged in piece-gouging to inflate the piece count in this set. One only needs to look at the hubs, the battery box, etc. to see this as the case. I just don't think it is as bad as everyone assumes. Also, I don't think it has so much to do with poor design as it does with the obvious "fluff" they added to the set just to inflate the piece count. Important distinction here is inflated piece count because of design flaw (one build) versus inflated piece count because of multiple vehicles, entities, etc. then you are on your way! Eager to see your results....
  10. nerdsforprez

    42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

    Your responses seem to contradict themselves. You start by stating the scale does not matter, continue with this thinking for most of the post, but then end it with "if the end product is around...." (i.e. talking about how the scale DOES matter). In my response, I think the scale certainly does matter... in regards to the complaint of too many pieces for scale. 4000 pieces means very little in difference scaling contexts. 1/20 scale? Way too many pieces (if not impossible). 1/5 scale? Probably too little pieces. Scaling certainly matters. Your build, I have no doubt, can be better than 42082. And probably will be. More functions for less pieces - no doubt you will do it and kudos when you do (no pressure! ) But to say that it is proof that 42082 could be built with much less pieces will be a stretch if the scale is not the same. And as we all know, best way to start a vehicle for proper scaling is with the tires (since there are so few official Lego options). I could be really off here, but it looks like you are going with the 68.7mm balloon tire? Is that correct? Or the 81.6? Either way, you are a long shot from the size of the Unimog tire (91 or so). So, if you model is the same dimensions than 42082 but you are using any tires I mentioned then your tires will be too small. If they are the correct size, then the overall scale of your model will not be 42082-size. And before you think that small differences in scaling don't mean that much in piece count understand that the relationship between the two is not linear. I have posted this before, but take for example Paul B.'s Vampire car and Sheepo's mustang. Roughly 1/10 scale compared to 1/8 scale. I have built both. More or less equally dense and complex builds. But with only slight differences in scale the piece counts are like around 1800 pieces compared to almost 4,000. More than 50% as many parts for the latter with only a slight change in scale. Sound familiar? Yes. Seems eerily similar to the complaints made about this model. So scaling has a lot to do with piece count. If you want to made something that is comparable to 82082 but of smaller piece count you have to make sure the scaling is spot on (i.e. just as big as 42082). But... if the argument goes something like this.... proving that you can build something at a smaller scale, with the same or even more functions than 42082 - well, that is a different matter altogether. And I think you are well on your way
  11. I did make a thread about the "redundancy" issue explained in my post. Like I said, I will look for the data on piece count versus weight as a predictor of price point. However, video posted by @allanp is a great starting point.
  12. It seems too generic. I get it. And like I said, doesn't seem to make much sense because it does account for non-ABS stuff. However, it doesn't matter. Non ABS is still LEGO, or at least to them it is, and they are going to charge you for it. And the thing is, like explained in the video below, it is much better related to price of a Lego set than is piece count. Especially towards the tail end of larger Lego sets. This is a statistical conclusion. Not a personal one. Someone may say "well, I don't care about packaging" etc. - that is fine. I am not making the argument based on any type of preference. Simply put, the relationship to final price of a Lego set is better predicted by its weight than its piece count - which uncovers something about something about whatever formula TLG uses to determine price point of sets. I assume what it uncovers is the cost/use of ABS (which is reflected in weight. Indirectly in piece count yes, but more-so in weight). Uncovers the use of other things as well, but mostly ABS since that is primarily what you are buying when you purchase a set. Yes. This is exactly what I meant. Excellent find. Couple of things: (1) I would not have used the term "value" in the video. This is too subjective and hard data points like those in the video often mean little to someone in terms of subjective value. Those watching the video I would encourage to think of like "price point" or something every time "value" is mentioned. (2) - the real story in the graphs I think was missed. Yes - Set weight's relationship to price point is stronger than piece count was discussed, but the real story is the difference between small and large sets. See on the graphs how the scatter of all the dots for smaller sets is relatively tight on both graphs? for both piece count and weight? But then for larger sets the scatter in the graph on piece count starts to go all over the place but for weight it remains the same? This is likely means there is an interaction going on. Can't tell completely, but what this means is that yes, weight is a better predictor than piece count of TLG price point but only for large sets; and exponentially so. i.e. the larger the set, the more this becomes the case. So then one has to ask why? I assume it has something to do with what I mentioned before with redundancy. Redundancy, in this context, is amount of pieces per lot. As any Bricklinker knows, it takes a lot of work to create a lot of "lots". More "lots" of pieces = more work. I would much rather have an order for 1000 pieces in one lot than an order for 1000 pieces but in 999 lots (999 different types of pieces versus only one). Large sets, through no fault of their own, (this is actually a natural law), will have many more pieces per lot (redundancy) than small sets. And the relationship is not linear. It gets more-so the larger the set is. Just like in the graph on weight and price point. Yes - you are right. I think "value" was the wrong term to use. Too subjective. Perhaps a better term or phrase would be "price point". As mentioned in my last post, I am not trying to make a subjective claim here. I think I do a pretty fair job of stating when something is my opinion or not. My original post was simply to point out the difference in statistical relationship between weight and price of a set versus piece count and price point of a set. Everyone thinks that piece count is the "holy grail" of this measuring this relationship. But I don't think this is the case. I think there is a near just-as-easy-to-obtain metric (weight) that better accounts for the variance between Lego set price points. Confirmed by the video posted by @allanp
  13. nerdsforprez

    42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

    Couple of thoughts: So - there have been quite a bit of complaints about the high piece count when a much less figure could have done just as well. Valid argument here. Especially when we see all too obvious evidence of an inflated value for this set (look at hubs, the toolbox, walls for building, etc. - and I will never understand all the pieces around the battery box switch). Many have even begun their own crane proving that something with all the same functions can be built at about 2/3 or 1/2 the pieces. But I think I am missing something. No one argues that the build could be done with much less pieces and the same functionality - but you gotta compare apples to apples. Those that have came out thus far have used different scales. If someone wants to prove that you can build something with similar functioning with much less pieces you also have to use the Unimog tires as your starting point. I think the real question here, if people want to complain about inflated part count, is to see if you can build the same model, of the same scale, same functionality and strength while keeping the piece count lower than the crane (not including the extras. Pads, building walls, etc. TLG could have excluded these things as well, they simply had different goals). I think if people focus on this they would find that building such a model would be more difficult than they anticipate. Lastly, I actually think the wheels are NOT big enough for this scale. Now I know that for some cranes this is a good scale, but I would love to see a rough terrain crane like this with truly hulking tires.... https://rtlequipment.com/equipment/2007-terex-rt1120-rough-terrain-crane/
  14. Thanks for this review Jim. Pics are excellent, and overall I enjoy your take on things as they tend to be a little less pessimistic than others I don't mean to sound like a broken record..... I think I brought this up back when the Porsche was new. There was a ton of hubaloo about price per piece in that set..... But I suspect dividing price by piece count, giving us a price per piece is not the most accurate way to measure a set's value. It is by measuring the amount of plastic that is in a set, or overall Lego (which includes booklet, etc) and dividing price by that figure. Years ago, and I need to dig up the data set, I compared the associations between piece count and price and set weight and price. I looked at like several hundred sets (my own curiosity) and weight of set easily had the greater relationship with set price. Overall correlation value was greater and there certainly was less variance. When I regressed price onto set weight versus piece count I also got a better prediction value with weight and price than piece count and price. Piece count is an indirect measure of ABS in a set, but set weight is a more direct measure (certainly not perfect.....as it also contains box weight, instructions weight, etc. but it is a better predictor). I get it.... there is a lot in a set that is not ABS. Does not matter. Over hundreds of sets, that all evens itself out. The key here is yea, the price per piece may only be like 7.5 cents a piece, but if they are all pieces that use little ABS then they do not cost TLG much. Pins, all the black rounded tiles for the hubs etc - they all don't cost TLG much. I am not saying this is the case with this set.... looks like there are plenty of liftarms that carry quite a bit of ABS, .....just something to think about. I really wish people would rethink the PPP argument. Perhaps I should look into publishing something formally. Another thing that I suspect goes into the formula is the amount of new molds that need to be created for a set.... or even the amount of different (even if used before) molds per piece overall. As you mention, there are only two pages to the inventory. So, per lot there are tons of pieces but relatively few lots (molds). This can be demonstrated with a piece count per lot. Sets with high piece count per lot are less unique (not overall, just in terms of piece use) than sets with much less pieces in each lot. Overall, high piece count per lot is a measure of redundancy (pieces used over and over and over) and the more redundant a set is, the cheaper it is for TLG to produce it. So.... with the above, I am not certain this set is the outstanding value everyone may think it is based solely on price per piece. Maybe.... I really need to look at its weight. But according to the redundancy value I mentioned, there certainly is a lot of it. But, I do like the set, I think I will get it. Just wanted to point out the above.