nerdsforprez

Hey! That last quote looks too similar to what I have had as my signature block for over a month now!

Hey everyone, just wanted to share an old MOC with ya’ll. Although this was build a while ago, I recently re-did the write-up and have never posted it on the forum. I never posted it because it is a relatively simple build and may not be very interesting to most. For such a large build and large piece count, there are less than 40 unique pieces used in the build, and no functions that we usually consider when we build with Technic. However, I do think that this MOC may be a good conversation-starter. Usually, we consider “Technic functions” as things that move, or in defining functioning, we think it is synonymous with movement. However, I think that there can be functionality in a model with no movement. As is the case with this MOC. Simple, with no aesthetic distraction, this MOC is simply a model of the framework of a popular building in the US. Check out the full write-up of the MOC on my page (signature block) for further details, but succinctly put, this build is scaled after the real thing, not just the project in total, but even the individual elements that comprise the whole structure’s frame. This leads me to my point. “Function” can be something provided that does not necessarily involve movement. Bridges, buildings, trusses, towers, etc. are all things that provide functionality with really no movement. Strength is a key component to these types of builds, and something that I think is somewhat underutilized here on the forum. Yes, these equal simple builds, but a wealth of information can be learned from them. Sariel’s book “Unofficial Lego Technic Building Guide” has many principles on building strong, which in my opinion is an important thing to consider when building with Technic and just as functional as moving parts. Pics below. The whole write-up is here.... http://mocpages.com/moc.php/355109

Yikes!! I was way off!! But I don't mind. ~1,000 more pieces than I estimated? I'll take it! TLG is moving in the right direction.......

Do we have a piece count on this model? looks quite large. I am estimating ~1,800 - 2,000?

Very pleased with this one. I will definitely be buying it. Pneumatics - check (yea! not going out!) And it appears there is a little of division among the Technic clan of liking the front cabin vs. hating it. Sign me up to the loving it side

SO happy that we are getting a new crawler crane. I made comments regarding this on a post a while ago: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=99797&st=25 Essentially, I mentioned the need for a new, large CC, to replace 8288. 8288 enjoyed great success, and I think that a new one, larger, is awesome. Although it is not nearly as large as I would like. Here are my exact comments: Large crawler cranes abound everywhere, tons of people have built them. However, I think this points to the immense interest people have in the builds. Also, TLG put out one, and only one crawler in I think 2007 or 2008, LEGO 8288, in it was an immense success. Even today, new, sealed models are selling for around 400-500 dollars, and this is on a set less than 1000 pieces! So I think there is an intense interest in a crawler crane. The other thing is these cranes are pretty simple. Lots of liftarms no doubt, but mechanically can be built much like the 8288 just on a larger scale. I think a large CC, roughly twice the size of 8288, say as a flagship model for 2015 or 16 would be wonderful and sell like ice in hell. If someone were to submit a well built, functional CC around the 1600-2000 piece range w/o motors but just manual functions I think it would get tons of votes, pleasing to TLG, and marketable. I would produce one myself but am currently tied up in other projects. Essentially, one day I would love to see something like the 8288, just much larger. Like ~2000 - 2500 pieces large. I think it would be a great flagship model.

I don't think I am your guy but I am super excited to see what it is!!!

Can't really remember. I know they are 1.9" diameter RC truck tires, I have had them for years and usually had them on other MOCs. If you google 1.9" RC tires you will see a bazillion of 'em. It is an oft-discussed topic in the Technic forum.

Had to see what the Tumbler would look like all tiled-out. I think it looks pretty good! The third-party tires don't hurt any either! more pics @ http://mocpages.com/moc.php/405282

I still think 42039 is insanely ugly......but I loved your video!

Wow... the OP has quite the collection. I have not read all the responses but from what I have read people are missing the boat. This is not a chance for everyone to say how close the OP's collection to their own (thus bedazzling us, the readers of their own collection) but provide a response to his query. I for one, to take a different approach, think that yes... you can have too much axles, etc. The OP mentioned that the collection has sat for years with no use. And by what I read... he/she does not think that they will have any time in the future for building. If there is no possibility to ever use the stuff, then I think it is time to consider selling it. Bricklink ? Lots of liftarms there..... worth some dough. If the OP thinks that one day time for building may come around, then keep everything. Real simple.

I think it has a lot to do with the buyer and the type of build you did. supply and demand my friend. I know people who have built MOCs for large corporations..... for marketing or aesthetic purposes. I know Ford has commissioned some in the past to create some of their models, not in full-scale, but large and have paid handsomely for it. In those cases the demand or need is very high. But unless you are building for some large corporation or very rich indivdiual, I think that you are unlikely to be able to ask what everyone is discussing here. MOC with thousands of pieces and man hours can creap even into the five digit numbers, and there just are not many willing to pay that kind of dough for a MOC. I remember that recently a car, working and everything was recently created out of LEGO with the price far surpassing the cost of an actual car!!! I think we have to remember that building probably should be done as a hobby and remain that way. Not likely to be a great economic boon. Yes, there are some that make dough from their MOCs, but they are very specific MOCs to the buyer specifications and it really takes out an element of creativity .....

Buy a tv wall mount. Technic works really good with these. Holds up my 3,000 piece Millennium Falcon just fine. http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/398186

Interesting article on LEGO NXT Mindstorms. CNN News.... good publicity for LEGO!! http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/tech/mci-lego-worm/index.html

The questions you pose really are personal ones that only you can answer. Is MOCing worth it? We all have limitations placed on us regarding access to building materials... either monetary limitations, product availability, etc... but because MOCing is so much fun we make things work. If MOCing really is that fun for you, then you will find ways around the limitations. LDD, building with limited parts, etc. are all solutions to your concerns. Perhaps not perfect solutions, but then again, such solutions to life's problems rarely are. Don't build for social reasons. In other words, if you build for attention, to find friends, internet exposure etc. then you are building for the wrong reasons. Such things come because you are having fun, not the other way around (i.e. social attention first then the fun). If social interaction is what you are craving, then there are a million other things that you can do to obtain that. Don't let the fact that you cannot take your builds to conventions etc. be a deterrent to your hobby. I have been an adult builder for years.... never once have I taken a build to some form of convention. Again, such opportunities are nice, but certainly don't even consider it a reason why you should or should not build.

This is really great. I love it. Recently, (too lazy to look up), there was a whole discussion lamenting the fact that nearly all Technic productions were some sort of wheeled invention. This one breaks outside that box while remaining functional. Nice job.

??? That doesn't sound like much fun Build because you like it and have fun doing it. Not for recognition or accolades. The quality of a build is in the entertainment and enjoyment one receives during the build, not its popularity. Forums and social sites used to share MOCs are wonderful, but have a down-side if one builds solely for secondary gain (popularity, youtube hits, etc...). The project does sound like a bunch of fun. Excited to hear updates.

I like it! I like it alot. Back of the legs looks pretty familiar!

I am the most altruistic out of the lot. I will kindly take the burden off your hands. My address is.......

My heart goes out to you brotha... same thing happened to me... but no cat was invovled Rebuilt my MF as well... second time is better :) Complete story is on my MOCpages (signature block)

Lastly, the range that is being considered here is large... 2009-2014, or a five year span. Given that only 5 examples are given, 5/5 year, on average we have 1 example from each year. Hardly a large enough sample to really consider a trend going on in my book.

I am confused about the post. It seems to contradict itself. It supposes a linear trend in decreasing complexity of models. However, by this rationale, the sets should then be presented in a linear fashion right? But they are not. 8258 released in 2009, is given the thumbs up in terms of complexity. 42009, released in 2013, was also given the thumbs up in terms of complexity. 8110 however, thumbs down, was released BEFORE 42009. well before. 2011. 42030 and 42039, both what I interpret are given the thumbs down, more recent, in 2014. Given the small N size of the examples given, and the lack of linearily in terms of a trend, I find it hard to say that there is some form of trend going on here......

For those that use the GoPro video recorder for showing your MOCs (Sariel I know uses one, or at least a variant) I am curious to see their reaction to this latest news. Here is the article. In sum, Apple received a patent to produce its own version of the GoPro camera. Smaller, lighter, cheaper and supposed to filter out wind and other noises better. Has anyone the inside scoop on this prodict. Thoughts, comments? Strengths or weaknesses of the GoPro versus Apple's new version? http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/13/technology/gopro-apple-patent/index.html

Having something wrong is not synonymous with not being able to be improved upon. Although there may not be something specifically wrong with the current PF stuff that does not mean that they cannot be improved.

The way I see it people we are comparing apples and oranges. Consider this point.... even IF lego PF elements were powerful, motors, servos, etc... and could make models faster they will not compare to RC models. People seem to be forgetting one thing. With great speed comes..... great crashes (yes, Sariel, if you want to use this as your new signature block you are welcome to ). If somehow Lego were to produce elements that could compare to RC parts then there would undoubtedly be some pretty fantastic crashes. And Lego elements would not be able to withstand such crashes. It simply does not have the durability or strength of RC parts. Nor should they and builders should not expect this. There is a trade off here. Lego may not have the durability or strength of their RC counterparts, but RC counterparts neither have the buildability or potential for creativity that Lego does. Trust me, have have experience in both. Although RC kits can be purchased that allow for building, the building is assembling, not creating (building in the purest sense). Part counts can be high, but not nearly as high as Lego sets and the combinations of assembly are the model and that is it. So, like I said... apples and oranges. If you want buildability, creativilty and options then Lego is your brand! If you simply want something fun to drive, then buy an RC car/truck. SOme of the posts are trying nto defend Lego as being as fun as RC cars... which is ridiculous. They are not nor should they be. If Lego build pieces as strong as RC car/trcuk parts then they would not be pliable enough to provide the options a Lego element does. But I will say this.... if one is not buying the apples/oranges argument, and still comaring the two like they are the same thing, then I think Lego wins! Lego offers more of playability/fun [like Sariel and others have said, Lego can be fast (** but don't buy for a second that they will ever be as fast as RC**)] AND buildability than RC offers playability/fun AND buildability (because their "'buidability" really is only assembly. Yes, you can modify and upgrade parts, but still... kind of just assembly. Can't even come close to arguing that RC compares to Lego in buildability). Succinctly... Lego offers more performance (the area it lacks) than RC does in buildability (the area it lacks).