swintendo

Well i'd expect some 'big boy' model team sets. But seeing the modern flagship technic sets, some already look pretty realistic and theyre full of functions too. So that's a good alternative imo

The comments on youtube are a sinkhole of idiocy. Can't help em all either! Just stick to answers they can't find by clicking the description link or watching the video again, you're not obliged to answer. Now piracy. You can't stop it. People will pirate your e-book. People will download the rip and none of those people will give a crap. It's not a felony to them cause what are you gonna do about it? They pirate your stuff because it's easy and free, both these reasons make the pirated version better than the alternative. Just know that these people don't care about you or your hard work in the slightest. They won't stop doing it either. Hell, if you 'fight' it with DRM and other such nonsense, people will look at you like you're Prince or Microsoft and see you as a greedy money wolf. Don't even look for logic in that, it's not there but that's what happens. The only way you can beat or limit piracy is to do a better job. And that sounds harsher than it should but it's the truth. I'd stick to printed copies. You can use your popularity and authority (i hope you realize you have some) to wriggle some kind of deal with a lego affiliated store or website. They can provide you with a goodie that you can put with each printed copy of your book, like a coupon or a code or whatever. Slap a banner on the back in return for something. These things can't get pirated and it gives your official printed book a big advantage over a pirated version. And if it gets scanned and pirated in pdf? Free advertisement for your website and whatever websites or stores you put in there. I mean if your book is known enough to be floating around in the pirate sea, that means a lot of people are seeing it. Use that to your advantage.

Here's the finished version. It could use some improvement on the wheel arches, nothing seemed to look right or fit without the wheels rubbing, and the roof isn't right, cause i don't have the right parts. But maybe i'll make instructions or a ldd file with the correct parts.

Someone made the rebel wrecker, the claw rig and that little jeep thing in studless form. So inspired by that, i'm trying to 'unstud' the 8408. I've seen someone called Yipeeka make a really slick white remake of this, but i'm really trying to stay as close to the original as possible, trying to keep the functions and methods the same and so far it's working out okay. Problem 1: Should i use some panels? I mean panels are part of the studless design too, right? But it does take away from the original look of the model. Here's pictures of both.

I see where i got my thoughts mixed up: when you follow the instructions, it all looks confusing cause you're not really following a design process, just a step by step instruction. When you're building a set from scratch yourself, you're much more aware of every parts` function. If you build it for yourself and discover everything for yourself, that's when you learn with studless design. So it's like nicjasno said, different thinking. (though one complexity thing i do stick to, is that you seem to need way more parts to do anything in studless )

Well i see how the lack of simplicity in the modern studless sets appeal to adult moc builders (I mean simplicity in parts use). But IMO that's a slight disadvantage that the modern sets have on the old sets (and it's linked 100% with studless building), ONLY because i have no talent for building studless. Look at this page from the air tech claw rig: i have a pretty good idea of what's going on, why the parts are where they are, and what's coming next. Every gear and beam sticking out has a function that's about to show up in a few pages, it's so simple. I can probably build some variation on this in a moc because the basics are pretty clear, even if i don't have a lego technic bone in my body. Most sets use the same techniques and even if they do something clever, the 'limits' of the studded brick make it easier to grasp. Every part can be categorized in a certain 'group' with a certain function. Now look at this page from the mini dual rotor helicopter. Looking at this, i see a mishmash of parts and i honestly say i have no idea what's going on. There's parts everywhere in every direction and they're all beams with holes in em. Up to this point, this told me nothing but 'put this part there'. I do blame my lack of talent in studless building (or old age haha), but even the small sets don't naturally give away the basics of studless building (is that even possible?). I feel like it tells you that anything is possible with the hundreds of modern parts, but you'll have to figure out yourself HOW. And i looked at the suspension of that articulated hauler and it made me dizzy. How do these people come up with that?

Looking on Technicopedia, i saw the evolution from older to newer sets and looking at todays sets, i came to a contradicting conclusion. The old (as in 1978 onward) sets had much much less parts to do stuff with, and they looked pretty crummy. But the way they made movements happen was so much more fascinating. Physics wise (or mechanics wise?) you can learn a lot from those old sets. Some of the mechanical movements, i can’t even wrap my head around them. The steering stick thing in that big yellow plane is amazing, it’s so simple when you look at it. That one set where an arm grabs a brick and sorts it (8094), it uses this mechanical trick to do a certain function with the same gears as the other function, it made me go how? HOW? Fascinating. That 856 bulldozer used totally unrealistic mechanics to lift the bucket but it's so clever. A lot of those sets were not realistic at all (to their real-life counterpart), both looks and mechanics, but the ‘replacement’ mechanics they used were just clever. The universal sets were also great for showing what you can do with limited part count. They even had early models that didn't really work, but the mechanics behind it are interesting anyway so why not? And then there’s that crane truck and the supercar and that space shuttle. Now, the modern sets are really something, big, pretty, complex and huge part count. I can't believe people still complain! Those gearboxes! But i can’t help feeling like they are not as ‘clever’ or inventive anymore. They use all sorts of specialized parts to make stuff happen, much of it kinda similar to real life or trying to emulate it (actuators etc.) Most sets have a gearbox, that differential thingy and suspension with fancy suspension parts. Steering with fancy steering parts. Fake engine. Big, BIG. There’s a part for everything and a lot of parts are only used for it’s one intended purpose (part of steering, suspension, etc). The smaller modern sets seem to be more inclined to have all sorts of ‘uses’ for different parts, instead of using them for the obvious, because of limited parts. But most sets (not all!) are relatively uninspired when it comes to part use compared to those old sets (except some mods where the inventors seem to have an unearthly ability to use parts in new ways). Not to mention the recycling of the same crane, towtruck, 4x4, instead of going for the more exotic vehicles out there. There's plenty of machinery out there to legofy. I just don't see your everyday kid implement a function as complex as a gearbox it its moc, and understanding it too, instead of just copying it from the instructions. As opposed to the older sets with 'simpler' solutions. I guess the reason is that they shifted from 'initiation to mechanics and physics and invitation to creating your own things' to 'playability, looks and stick to the instruction book'? If you see what they could do with the small parts available in the 80's sets, imagine what you can do with the huge amount of parts available today? It shows in mods too. Technic mocs i see are usually rc, cars, crawlers, trucks, with all the shebangs that the official sets have, or improvements on existing sets. While pretty amazing, a lot of these mocs are kinda the same without much innovation. If you look on rebrickable: the box that keeps flicking the switch back, the braiding machine, the computer thingy, the elevator to space and the multiple c-models of 42020, i thought these examples stand out from a grey sea of mocs (when it comes to ideas, NO DISRESPECT INTENDED). Also the small mocs with multiple functions are technic wonders (as in: genuinemodels compact excavator). Conclusion and tldr; OLD SETS ugly, small parts pool, unrealistic mechanics but extremely 'clever' parts use, NEW SETS better looks, big parts pool, realistic looking mechanics, complex but not so 'clever' part use. Both old and new are better and worse than eachother. Would you prefer the 'old' way of ideas vs the 'newer' way of playability and semi-realism? Is anyone still interested in those clever mechanics of old, or is the whole moc scene flooded with rc crawlers and slick vehicles? What are your views on old vs new set design, part use and innovation? Is this all an illusion because of my limited knowledge of physics and mechanics (that i don't see the cleverness of the newer models cause it goes way over my head)?

AFOL from Belgium I started with lego system, then got some studded technic sets, the old 8838 shock cycle was my first set! That was way back in elementary school. A couple of sets later, shitty sets came out that got ignored. A couple of years ago i got my first post-dark ages set, the awesome unimog. My lego experience was still set in the 90's midrange sets, so this HUGE MODERN FLAGSHIP was an incredible eye opener. Since then i got a load of big awesome sets, next one probably being that mercedes truck or the blue crane. But i'm a picky buyer, only bang for buck. I don't like rc sets or motorized sets but i guess kids love it and lego is for kids. I also have zero talent for MOC-building but i try anyway cause it's fun. And i'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Blakbird with his super interesting technicopedia, i read it front to back and waiting for 1997, his tackle on the lousy technic sets, and the big modern sets.