AVCampos

Yes, and people still complained about it. Also about how simplistic the drivetrain was, with each motor practically directly connected to its track. People nowadays see it in a more positive light (just like they do with almost all sets), and I'm sure the 42131 will be the same when the time comes for a new Technic bulldozer.

I think it was a genericised trademark (is that the term?), just like jeep, xerox and kleenex, and what TLG wants to avoid by not wanting people to say "I'm playing with my legos".

Since so many people are comparing the realism of the 42131 vs. the realism of the 8275, remember that the 8275 had its cylinder engine connected only to one of its tracks, which made it unable to drive straight (slightly more friction in one of the tracks than the other).

More choices is always good. For small models we have the old 3-wide tracks, for medium/large models we have the 5-wide tracks, and for really large models (or snow groomers) we have the new tracks. I just hope these larger ones also become available in standard grey/black, as yellow ones will look pretty bad after playing for a while on a dirty ground.

CAT, CAT, oooooohhh it's a CAT...

I don't know how it's implemented, but personally I'd prefer the 2nd option: the first one adds too much latency to the controls, even for a slow-moving machine like a bulldozer.

I'm divided on whether I prefer one motor per function, or one motor multiplexed for several functions: in the former case it's simpler and has less points of failure (anyone remembers the outriggers on 42009?), while in the latter case the gearing is more interesting to build and see work.

A Chinook? Oh no, definitely no. I'd never want a LEGO model of a military aircraft.

Assuming M_longer does have the set, it's an early sample sent by LEGO. If they showed the parts page, they'd be breaching embargo, which means at the least no more early sets.

It trades the ability to lock differentials with a two-speed gearbox. One might be better than the other, depending on the situation.

Probably because it's cheaper and, since it's not part of a motorised drivetrain, doesn't need to be as strong.

Or it could have two such mechanisms, using a single motor for selection: that way the model could have 8 functions, two at a time, using 3 motors.

Hopefully not landing gears.

True, but is that a pattern or a coincidence?

Just as what happened with the brick-built engines with square pistons that evolved into the dedicated parts we know today, I don't doubt we'll get somewhere in the future dedicated parts to build smaller engines.

I don't know if it's technically possible, but if the hub can connect to an HID-compliant controller there should be no compatibility issues.

Plus, who is to say TLG adhere to any pattern at all? It has the disadvantage of limiting what they want to produce, and I don't see any advantage in it.

What TLG could do that improved on Pybricks regarding physical remotes (for which Pybricks is a bit overkill IMHO) would be an interface like BrickController 2: press a button on the gamepad, and assign it to a hub output. Then that table of assignments could be downloaded to the hub, which would then connect directly to the gamepad without further need of the mobile device.

That physical PUp remote is the same we've been having for years, that came in the two City PUp trains. The difference is that, installing Pybricks on the hub, now it can connect to the remote and react to button presses. Video explanation by RacingBrick:

Exactly! That's what I keep telling here whenever people get a hold of small blurry images of non-final sets and start extrapolating details.

The 8110 is one such example: http://www.technicbricks.com/2011/06/multimog.html

Nice entries, some are quite unexpected! Congratulations to all participants. Here are my favourites: 13: 10 33: 6 10: 4 1: 3 8: 2 14: 1

Along with the LED matrix and the smaller hub, it will appear in SPIKE Essential: https://education.lego.com/en-us/products/lego-education-spike-essential-set/45345#spike™-essential

Yes, and although they for some reason have different internal IDs, their characteristics are the same.

And does it still have absolute position encoding, or is it "dumb" like the motor in WeDo 2.0, Batmobile and Zetros?