Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gimmick

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
  • Which LEGO set did you recently purchase or build?


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's true for Control+, but for PU it is in some way contradictory, especially if you include the discussions about the product line (too many cars) in Technic. If the "Lego spirit" is creative building, multipurpose motors + PU is very much "Lego spirit". Like every other Lego-part it enables creative usage, but sucks if you need performance / durability. C+ on the other hand feels like a surrender :D. They should simply build GUIs for every model with PU and if they fail because some features are missing -> add them. Yes that would be worse sometimes in terms of usability, but it would combine the building experience perfectly with the digital experience.
  2. We should train a ML network with lego sets xD My 'realistic-not-to-optmistic' expectations: 10221 Super Star Destroyer has ~3100 pieces and some big plates. Release was 2014, price ~400 €. -> 9 years later, new specialized big parts -> 450-500 € +no new electronics. After Cat and Volvo and because gearboxes do not work well under high torque, there will not be a function gearbox again, I guess -> 2 Hubs. 500 € + two hubs and maybe 6 motors -> 650 €. And the app will contain some fancy trigonometry calibration and calculation so you can use "kinematic" controls like for the 42100. End of Nostradamus-Mode. I'm sure I got it all wrong ;-) The unusual ppp of the this set makes speculating realy fun :D
  3. No, my taste seems to be kind of nonconforming, so I often buy sets with bad ratings xD. Yep, and the best anyone can do is: When they make their purchasing decisions dependent on testers -> find one who shares your taste. And the best the tester can do is: Accept that some things are subjective opinions and don't sell this opinion as general fact. And don't rush against people with different taste. I watch @kbalage's videos regularly (about sets I don't buy anyway xD) and it's not uncommon, that I disagree with him. But the friendly, relaxed atmosphere makes it possible to share the hobby without stressing each other over different opinions. And even in Asterix, the entire village fights each other just to celebrate together afterwards :D And if the tester makes a living from it, he only says what he earns the most with :D Damn, no matter what you are doing, it's always suspicious... except if someone has the same opinion ;D
  4. Yes. And that's basically all we have right now :D Not sure about that. For some people it's more about the 'target audience'. They want to buy a large Lego crane but don't want to/ cannot spent that much money for it. Will there be another not-that-large-crane? I don't think so. If the next excavator would costs 2000 €, would I buy it? No, no matter what. If that would be the only C+ excavator, it would be disapointing from my perspective. Eventhough it can be a very great model with great value. But hat does not mean there would not be target audience for that. There are a lot of far more expensive RC models. I'm sure it will be an interesting model, with a lot of new stuff.
  5. Yep lol. Razor Crest costs 600 € for 6200 pieces. Even if I overestimate the price for the electronics, there are still like 500 € left for 2900 pices xD What are they creating? Large complex parts? Screws and nuts? Delivery by a crane? Powered by Raspberry Pi? Dedicated power supply? xD
  6. Large, rectengular surfaces and other simple geometries can be build with a few parts. My first thought was, that this could be bigger, than the part count indicates.
  7. So it's basically new 42123? Nothing wrong with that, but I guess it will not have a lot of functions, but nice building techniques instead.
  8. Gimmick

    Marvel Superheroes 2022 - Rumors & Discussion

    @ Hulk Buster Set If the legs are fully articulated: Impressive set. Otherwise: meh
  9. Gimmick

    Web LEGO

    At the bottom of the site is a link for cookie settings.
  10. Yes of course. The cars moved from Technic to Racers and back to Technic. Moving Mindstorms back to Technic would be fine, too. It's only about labels and sorting things. Is a model "Racers" because it's a car or "Technic" because it's basically Technic only in the shape of a car...You can put every car into Racers or split it becaue of different build styles....or by "intention of use", so some "Technic" cars would be Racers, others "Technic"... I don't see "the one solution above all" here. I would simply check how diverse the complete catalog is and from my perspective: the ~$40-100 range misses at least one model, that is not a car. :D If they would hire more designers, they could simply create more Technic sets without removing the cars. More sets in total is a delicate issue currently ;) @ Your edit "Exact same function" -> that's the point. If you only call the final result in movement "a function" a lot of sets are overengineered as f****. The gearbox in 42043, 42055 or 42082? Completely useless. Adding a second battery box + motor (or even motors) in the base of the crane (or bucket wheel excavator) would save so much parts and reduce complexity and improve playability.... and so on. At some point those solutions are always self motivated or "the solution and problem are the same". If I take a look at the 42030 I would say: No, you cannot make the tractor of the cat significant smaller, without building a completely different model. Can you make a smaller tractor with similar movements in general? Yes of course. Even a very small dozer with only three motors (tracked car with shield :D) would be realy great I think. Every solution has its objective pros and cons, the subjective preference can everyone chose as he likes. I like the compact "control center" of the 42055, even though it drives like.... :D
  11. To me it seems more like the way to go from 8880 and 8461, 8674, 8145 without completely reinventing the style after switching to beams instead of technic bricks (was Technic, stays Technic! xD). So they tried it, people liked it, they did more of it. Speedchampions are basically Racers and they do it well, don't touch it. Removing cars from Technic would simply result in less Technic-Sets anyway - and the remaining sets would still include sets like buggies, quads, karts... if I may give it a try But a discalimer at first: I do not think the size of a model alone is appealing. But I like some models, that others think their only accomplishment is the size :D I agree to the quoted points. Large sets cause problems and they are not easy to handle (transport, storage,... ). But I appreciate some kind of reasonable scale in terms of actually play-features, some neccessary details (like fake engine as you said) and relation between models. That means: A tower crane has to be a tower, eventhough the tower itself is not a function. If you have multiple excavators, trucks,... , the larger/largest versions should actually be larger. If a model needs big wheels (can be a fantasy or scifi set, like M-Tron or Arctic) the scale grows, eventhough it's basically empty. Larger models can sometimes interact better with other things outside of the Lego world Details like a fake engine do realy improve the "completeness" of a model for me Making larger models work is some kind of satisfying challange. Examples (all subjective): Upcoming Liebherr crane: If the model will not be THAT tall, they should change the name, so it won't be to small in relation. 42082: Could be smaller. 42055: Has to be large, because it is what it is. Same goes for the 42100. 42114: Could be smaller, but maybe I'm wrong and it's not realy possible without removing some features. It mainly has a huge dump bed - which is great for transporting a lot of other non-lego-stuff ;) 42131: Could be a bit more narrow, but the tractor itself, which contains all functions, is not that big therefore not sure here either. 42030: Good size for playability. (the body is bigger than the 42131 tractor I think? Oo) Titanic: I don't own this model and I don't realy care about it, but a small Titanic seems wrong. Sounds like some models suffer from small mainstructures with some huge attachements xD And I actually do not care very much about design-details, so the correct amount of lights, stairs or tracks is not a benfit of scale for me. If someone does not "need" a fake engine or some kind of scaling, smaller models would fit his preferences better of course. Maybe sometimes removing details or the right thing to improve other properties - I would call it "personal preference optimized".
  12. My experience: For driving: Buwizz + BrickController2 app + gamepad For multifunction/robotic/complex things: Lego PoweredUp app + Lego PU remote or mindstorms app + gamepad
  13. With 4 buggy motors on one axle I would call that "highly optimistic" ;D Great offroader, a true excess of pure power!
  14. Gimmick

    Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

    The 42145 is a shelf-model, too. And every argument about "useless gearboxes" in supercars applies to it: You can show the mechanics, appriciate that it's there, but it does nothing practical. Actually every function of this set besides the landing gear is theoretical. :)