howitzer

All of those are effectively two-dimensional, I was thinking more of a part that would be large in all three dimensions. And yeah, I don't think such a part is necessary for the current scale either, but if TLG starts to push for the ten thousand parts scale, they're going to need something more robust.

Technic is different from the likes of the Colosseum or the Millennium Falcon in that a Technic set must have some functionality. Even the recent empty shell-racecars still had suspension and fake engine and they were midsize sets. Anything bigger must have a lot more functionality to justify the additional parts and the price that comes with them. This presents a problem for Technic, as large and functional, even mobile builds must be very strong but ABS has it's limits and for official sets those limits are much tighter than what hobbyists can make. I think the 4000-ish parts of the BWE, RTC and Liebherr was already pushing it, all of them needed a significant amount of structural bracing and hundreds of parts were tied into cosmetic and/or playability-increasing extras. So unless there's going to be sets with large main model and smaller (but significant) secondary model(s) and function-demonstrating extra pieces, I doubt we'll be seeing much larger sets. Maybe up to 5000 parts but not much more. One could of course speculate with the idea that TLG would create some new large structural pieces specifically for the purpose of giving large models strength and volume (Technic version of BURP) but I find it highly unlikely. I also prefer somewhat smaller scale for the ideal Technic set, something like Arocs: packed with functions and great playability but still large and impressive to look at.

2x11 pneumatic cylinder, but yeah. For some reason Rebricable lists it as different part from those in 42080 and 42043 but I can't see any functional differences between them. Now only if the thin version was also re-released...

Now I'm curious to build the set and see how difficult it would be for me to get it right... But I don't need the parts (except maybe the yellow ones) and it's far too expensive to get just for the building experience and testing :|

Then go ahead and call the customer service for a replacement. They should send you one with no problem.

I thought the March sets would be the hovercraft and the excavator? But yeah, as soon as there's any news, it'll be posted here,

So... what does this set do with those 600+ extra parts that 42077 didn't?

My immediate thought also. Yeah, it's not Lego in a purist sense but still pretty impressive achievement, considering the motors, propellers and frame is still Lego, even if the power source and control electronics are not. --- I hope this thing will fly but it probably won't. For me it appears to be far too heavy and complicated to get off the ground and into a controlled flight.

I use discontinued parts if I happen to have them and they serve a purpose. I might for example use the old 24T crown gear to run 24T or 40T spur gear as it meshes with them while other bevel gears don't. Toothed connectors are another case where some functionality was lost when the old design was replaced with the current one so I might sometimes use them. I also considered using the old square pistons for a fake engine to make a larger one than is feasible with the round ones. And of course the old wheels are perfectly usable.

I believe the Model Team theme of the old days was about building highly detailed vehicles with some (but minimal) functionality and if this MOC isn't exactly that, then I don't know what is. The Creator Expert line today of course creates a slight problem in categorization, as it's not always clear where those kind of MOCs should be posted. Sometimes they don't really have any more functionality than the likes of City vehicles (for example the VW van which doesn't even have steerable wheels) but others are just like the Model Team of the 90's, like the Ford Mustang. Then there's also the Harley-Davidson Fat Boy, which even incorporated fake engine connected to the rear wheel. I'm not sure but maybe Model Team-style MOCs would be more at home in some other section, like in the Scale Models? Even the contests in this forum often impose limitations where Model Team style of construction is not allowed and correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't happen very often (if at all) that the contests have it the other way around: making a model that's all about brickbuilt exterior detailing, with only minimal functionality - in other words a Model Team contest. Oh, and great job on the copter, I love the details and how you have captured the shape of the real thing.

Now it works, except with the wrong theme skin.

I first thought that this topic was about the Lego Technic theme and how it's being directed by TLG. But yeah, thanks for making it usable again even with the wrong theme graphics.

Edit: there's an explanation (some problem with the theme) and it seems to be usable now. Now it sort of works for me:

Same here, tried two different browsers and phone too, getting just blank screen.

The motors of course emit some sound but it shouldn't be cracking-like but instead of more or less constant whine which is proportional to the speed and not very loud. The linear actuators have an internal clutch which emits cracking sound when driven to the extreme ends and the linear clutch part similarly makes cracking sound when it's engaged. If the cracking sound comes from anywhere else, it's bad though as it indicates that gears are not turning freely but skipping teeth.

Thank you @Aanchir for your thoughtful comments on the cost of things and daisy chaining. Thanks for demonstrating this daisy-chaining of dumb motors, I've never seen it done though it's logical enough that it can be done, even if it requires custom wiring. As for the price... PU motors are not that much more expensive than PF motors unless you insist on buying directly from TLG. While they are way overpriced in their official pricing, you can get all PU motors from Bricklink almost at the same prices as the equivalent PF motors. No idea though if there is differences in durability. I don't know much about GBC's but I've come to understand that making reliable modules is always a challenge. For this I could envision a PU-driven module which detects the stalling of the motors and alerts the controlling phone (though I'm not sure if any of the official apps allow push notifications as of now) so this way you wouldn't have to sit constantly beside the module just to observe it's reliability. Something that's missing from the PU environment for GBC people is an easy way to connect the machinery to mains power. There are many DIY solutions but they always come with their own burden of reliability and safety issues while PF could be easily powered with the train controller and converter cable. I hope to see some sort of solution for this. (Using RI hub would be one, but that's expensive.)

Wire connectors have been discussed extensively earlier. There's a tradeoff to be done and it's really not that big of a limitation, except maybe if they introduce lights at some point where you might want to connect lots of lights (though there are ways around that too and the question remains whether TLG will find use it or not). Which essential components are missing? The only thing I can quickly think of is extension wire, which hopefully will be released in the future. Which C+ and PU devices don't talk to each other? As I understand it, you can use any motor with any hub as long as the connectors are compatible. I'm not sure if the Mindstorms external sensors are usable with C+ hub though. Your third point is mostly solved by the dumb hub, though it having only 2 ports is pretty limiting. As for the torque, I suppose they could make somewhat more powerful motors, but remember that it's still a toy, not meant to compete with proper RC cars or anything like that. 1. Yes, this is valid criticism and I believe TLG is going to address the gap between those users who just want to plug and play and those who want to write their own code. The documentation is also abysmal, so there's a lot of work to be done with this aspect of PU. 2. Smaller 4-port hub would be a welcome addition, though I'd rather have it with LiPo than AAA batteries. This way the form factor is not limited by the battery standard.

I'm heavily getting the feeling that many people are condemning PU as crap without even trying it out. Yes, it has issues and downsides in comparison, but there are also a multitude of new opportunities and advantages which PF couldn't offer. PU is also new and will surely get a lot of development in the future. One should remember that PF was released in 2007 with only M and XL-motors, battery box and IR remote control. Lights and a switch were released next year and another (the most useful and common) motor size and the servo motor only five years after the initial release. Where will PU be in a few years? The botched release of the dumb hub of course is a problem considering it is something that is sorely needed (and in my opinion, should've been the first thing to be released along with the motors) and Hidden Side is a commercial failure (reasons analyzed in depth elsewhere) so obviously TLG has had some problems adapting to the digital age, but overall I see no reason to insist that everything used to be better with PF. As for the MOC makers, I'm guessing that many people haven't really tried out all the features of the PU system and it will take some time to learn how to make a proper use of it. Give it a year or two, and I'm sure we'll be seeing more of the interesting stuff, the kind that were very difficult or impossible to achieve with PF.

I'm one of those people who have never had any problems with these (or any) parts breaking. In total I have had maybe 5 Technic parts to break over the years, including my and my brother's Lego in my childhood (25-35 years ago or so). Of those couple are 1L bushes, couple are toothed connectors and one of the first type of liftarm (2825) originating in 8868 was also broken when I put the set back together after 25 years of storage. I'm not sure but I have a very vague recollection of the oldest type of 24 tooth gear also breaking in my childhood. As for the reasons, I have no idea why this happens to some people and not others, beside those that Erik listed.

By far the hardest part is: finishing the thing. I tend to get ideas and start to work on them but when I'm finished with the core thing I wanted to achieve often I find myself without much motivation to continue. This is especially true when the finishing only consist of aesthetic parts like bodywork.

51515 hub of course includes a LiPo battery and can both be recharged while attached or switched to spare quickly. Functionally it can also do anything the C+ hub can and more.

That's how I would do it, but I'm sure that's not how TLG is going to do it :)

Ok, fair enough for small models, but that doesn't explain for example the knob operating linear actuators in 42055. Heavy model + minimal friction should make crank ideal. Not that it's hard to swap the knob for crank but still...

Yeah, the "linear" is very confusing term, as I have associated it previously with motors that produce linear (usually reciprocating) motion instead of rotating. But as kbalage commented above, here it means only that the motor has output in the end of the motor shaft, instead of angle gearing and output in the side like angular motors. I think it's a general agreement that studless building is difficult, as it requires more planning ahead than studful building but it's balanced out by more versatile building possibilities. Many parts have been released over the years which now allow stuff that was essentially impossible before them, for example the clutch gear and driving ring released in 1993 and 1994. The question about who gets to make decisions about new parts is more related to purism, which has been discussed at length in other threads, so I suggest you take a look at those if you're interested in the topic :)

Not acceptable, the wheels are not touching the ground.