andythenorth

At the risk of derailing the thread, I am neither a pro-graderist, nor an anti-graderist, but here's some grader functions blade height and tilt angle blade side shift blade rotation (circle) front-wheel oscillation (pendular suspension) front wheel steering frame articulation (combined with steer, the front wheels can be offset substantially to follow a different track from the rear rear wheel chain drive, with independent swing suspension on each side optional rear ripper / scarifier optional ditching / sidewalk snowplough extension engine + transmission rotating light beacon! Much pneumatics would be needed, the recent long thin cylinders look perfect Would my kids want it? Hard to say Would I buy it as an AFOL? No. With that much pneumatics would be £200+

'openable' and 'reliably waterproof' tend to be opposed goals in product manufacturing.

They bought Discos in spades so eh. The Defender was only kept alive in the UK by it's insanely high legal towing capacity which kept utilities buying it, and some big MoD orders for the Wolf, which was a very expensive modified Defender that actually worked I've driven Discos, Defenders and Range Rovers off-road. The bubble-gum school run Disco is surprisingly capable. The Defender is underwhelming, All that said, I'm stirring the pot a bit. I'd rather have a Transit.

Ever use one of these? https://www.retro-kit.co.uk/page.cfm/content/Control-IT-buffer-box/ Had a logo-ish control program.

Off-topic, @plingboot is your nick a Risc OS reference?

[Off topic] So....anyone connected a PU / Control+ motor to the new pneumatic valves yet? The new motors support precise angles....proportional valve control?

Most lolz thread in a while. Want my pictures of the old CV joints with the lugs twisted off?

I had to research this for OpenTTD (transport game) recently. White tail lamp with red aspect is the most common case. https://catalogues.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GMRT2483 Iss 1.pdf There are various designs. http://farnhammrc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/TailLamps-2.pdf https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/why-use-tail-lamps-when-working-tail-lights-are-available.119310/

The video is compelling: the performance of the new wheelset is really quite poor eh?

I use rechargeable AA/AAA, but one of the issue is they're 1.2v vs 1.5v for Alkalines.

There's no public announcement of a controller for Control+. I can't see how it would work. Control+ offers features like motors acting like servos. To be flexible for different sets, that would demand a programmable controller, with software transferred to it from an app on a smart device or computer. But I've been wrong about TLG stuff many times before A physical controller with 4 or 6 assignable functions would also be an expensive part, at least if done to Lego standards (and not the cheap 4 or 6 way controllers my kids have for cheap drones and RC toys), and would raise the price of every Control+ set that included it. In advanced economies nearly everybody has an incredibly powerful pocket computer with Bluetooth, it's 70%-80% for example in UK, North America and most of Europe. Personally I prefer physical buttons to glass, but making a dedicated physical controller would be an odd choice by TLG Never say never though, Powered Up has the controller for trains / RC cars.

Hang on, I can improve this And now for my serious point Many things are trade-offs. On the one hand the new wheel block may increase friction. On the other hand, it's now possible to insert a continuous 2-wide plate under the wheel block. Historically, the metal axle has prevent this. For the old blocks, whilst it's always possible to integrate them in a chassis or bogie somehow, the robustness and playability is often limited, and the wheel blocks are prone to breaking loose from MOCs. The new design makes it much easier to mitigate that. Trade offs

Well This is a discussion about Lego that contains electronics? So an electronic device is inherently required no? There's always the option to use the older electrical systems.

I'd put a small bet on the motors being similar to Boost for position and speed. You can see how Bricknil controls a Boost motor here: https://virantha.github.io/bricknil/_autosummary/bricknil.sensor.motor.html#bricknil.sensor.motor.ExternalMotor Included is the option to turn to a target angle at a specific speed, e.g. await self.motor.set_pos(90, speed=20) # Turn clockwise to 3 o'clock position Bricknil hasn't announced support for Control+ yet, but the other community-developed software controllers probably all offer similar features. I figure they'll add Control+ once they've got motors + hubs on hand to work with. Obvs. this isn't the official TLG app

I think if they'd been doing this for 20 years, we'd have seen a fully-fledged MOC-controlling tool available at launch. But there has to be a version 1 of everything eh?

They have in the past. There are two hi-rail truck sets, the prices on Bricklink are not too bad. https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=4541-1&name=Rail and Road Service Truck&category=[Train][9V]#T=S&O={"iconly":0} https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=4546-1&name=Road and Rail Maintenance&category=[Train][9V]#T=S&O={"iconly":0} There is also a hi-rail excavator set, prices are ok https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=4525-1&name=Road and Rail Repair&category=[Train][9V]#T=S&O={"iconly":0} There is also a hi-rail excavator in the 7936 level crossing set, price is a bit high https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=7936-1&name=Level Crossing&category=[Train][RC Train]#T=S&O={"iconly":0} There's a hi-rail truck in a 9V level crossing set, but price is outrageous https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=10128-1&name=Train Level Crossing&category=[Train][9V][World City]#T=S&O={"iconly":0} There's a hi-rail truck in 3677 Red Cargo Train from 2011, it can also be found for sale standalone on Bricklink https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=3677-1#T=S&O={"iconly":0}

It's a competence thing. TLG are good at engineering ABS and power electronics. They're still not so good at computing platforms yet. Maybe they'll git gud?

There isn't? One person posted about using PU (I think they meant legacy PF) instead of C+ so they could use the C+ in their MOCs? Somebody else talked about getting Spike for their MOCs, and somebody else confused that with replacing C+ in 42100 with Spike? Lots of non-native English speakers, lots of posts about different topics all in one thread, stuff happens Related: I think the new platform is a winning idea from TLG. But the naming is helping no-one: Control+, Powered Up, Spike, Boost, it's confusing.

"Stunt track not included" OUTRAGED

I haven't got Control+ hub, but using Bricknil (raw python, no UI), it was trivial to connect and control Boost Move hub and motors. There are multiple open source / community control apps already, to suit different people, some have UIs, some don't

Lol some AFOLs. "I am so rational and logical, yet I make up my mind decisively about things I haven't seen or experienced." The teaser is 6 seconds. Smashing up Lego is pretty awesome. Aside from the environmental concern about pointless waste. Otherwise, awesome.

I love Technic AFOL rants. Only in the mind of some Technic AFOLs does this happen: TLG have multiple incompatible competing electrical systems, anyone wanting to use more than one has to buy a complete range of parts for every system TLG unify systems to be compatible, with wide range of interchangeable parts specific kind of AFOL perceives TLG are doing this only for marketing reasons, and to make more profit Keep it up, it's great work. This is always a good read https://www.lugnet.com/general/~1285/traumaticevents FWIW... the Powered Up Hub from trains is widely available around £15 ($18 USD) on Bricklink there are some sellers listing it as £55 ($68 USD) due to price gouging or confusion the Boost Move Hub is widely available around £23 ($28 USD), again some confused sellers listing as £70 ($86 USD) Those who want to build Technic without Control+ can alternatively use PU, Boost or Spike hubs, and can also use the various sensors and motors from those lines, mixing and matching all freely. The lack of stacking bothers me, but then again, PF can't actually drive more than 2 stacked L or XL motors through one IR receiver, so eh. It's only a loss of perceived functionality from PF versus C+, the actual performance of stacked PF sucks. Hence the success of the 3rd party PF receivers and power bricks.

Lego have one of the most valuable brands in the world. Mack trucks....don't. Automotive companies spend £$€millions buying the kind of coverage that partnering with TLG gives them. But we'll probably never know how licensed Technic works because it will be commercially confidential. And this speculation derails threads, so I should stop eh

That makes sense, the Mack truck could well have a subsidy from Mack.

I don't know much about off-roading. But I've been off-roading with off-roaders. They liked and used the disco, even though it's a fashion 4x4 with a sunroof. They're into expedition off-roading, not rock crawling. The shape of the body panels makes *** all difference to off-road performance. Perhaps there are some people who claim to be all about function, but can't see past some curved body panels?