nerdsforprez

For anyone still having cracking issues I recommend they follow the advice from @racingbrick's youtube video (already posted). Works terrifically.

Wow. I'll be paying close attention to this. This looks like some massive up-gearing. Cant imagine it will work. But your skills are amazing. I'll be eager to see if you can make it work.

Alot of accolades will be coming your way for your build. But let me add this. 8 motors, 2 Sbricks, all for just over 2000 grams????!! I hope folks recognize how amazing that is.....

Goodness. Have some tact and at least get your facts straight before throwing barbs at folks. Lol....one late review out of dozens aint that bad. Certainly not enough to cause a policy change for TLG.

Extremely common. Wouldnt worry about it much. Still serve their purpose.

Not to mention i dont even think it worked. Or people just arent voting. Nothing is showing up.

Yeah - I think we are getting too far into the weeds with this. And sorry man, but you lost me . I don't know what you are researching but the article you cited again did not say anything about CRT's radiating/refreshing but not LCD or LEDs. If you found something stating that great - but I can only go off of what you provided as your reference and there was nothing like that. But fair enough - communication via forums can be difficult. Sometimes I feel I completely suck at it. Suffice it to say, I should correct what I said as well. "Attacks" indeed is a loaded term. Whether or not screen viewing versus paper viewing damages the eyes - I don't know. But I do know they are not the perceived the same and there are differences how they present information. @Toastie cogently laid out some of these differences. In summary, one is a light/energy source (with refreshing rates or something akin to that) and the other one simply a reflection of light. In the world of how this is perceived (my field) there are huge differences how the eyes and brain respond to this. They are not the same at all. This is why screen time can be associated with headaches, seizures, etc. where paper viewing (unless sufferers are using poor lighting, etc.) really is not. IMO, further discussion about how computer screens/etc. versus paper may or may not affect one's eyes is a moot point in application to this topic. It is a moot point because what we are really talking about is the perception of vision, not vision itself. Vision is the domain of the eyes (retina, photoreceptors, etc. and all that) whereas its perception is the domain of the brain. Eyes don't see at all actually. Brain does all that. And if we define vision in this way (why wouldn't we - if there is no one around to "perceive" it why are we even talking about it?) then paper and electronic viewing are indeed different. But.... and here is the salient point; a point I have made several times now. The benefit of paper over electronic viewing is not so much because paper is better per se, it is because in today's high paced, techy society it is novel. Novel information always takes precedence over familiar information in terms of visual processing. Novel information also gets tied with more attention and awareness which enhances visual processing. Vision is not everything here. Ever had the experience when you were rocking along in building a set only to notice, several steps/pages back that you missed a piece or step? Completely didn't "see" or "notice" it. Or rocking down the highway - blazing home from work to finish your MOC - only to buzz on by a policeman? Does that mean something was temporarily wrong with your eyes? Did you get something stuck there, or a sudden bout of blindness? No. Attention and awareness are huge players in the processing of visual information such as what would be found on the pages of a Lego build. And even these are different. For interested readers, look up hemispatial neglect. Attention and awareness are just as important as the eyes when it comes to the processing of visual information. Two players that view paper and screens very differently. Introducing novelty for the purposes of information processing helps avoid inattention or unawareness. Although I still continue to argue reading has the edge over screen presentation for visual information processing (literature showed this effect long before our burst into the "screen" era) I believe that most the benefit I see in patients, students, etc. from periodically using paper-based reading/chart-viewing, etc. over digital reading is simply because it is a novel presentation. Mind is more alert and aware when it is presented in this fashion..... I went ahead and made it a poll. You asked so nicely Honestly, though - I don't see much need for it. I have not gone back and tallied responses, but pulling from memory so far the responses have been overwhelmingly for paper. I think there have only been a few preferences for digital. ALso, though I like your suggestions of categories you laid out before, I don't think they would be useful. Reason being they were not all equal. Of course folks are going to prefer booklet to be paper for A and B models plus digital access over just paper for A model because it offers so much more. So, I made it a simple paper or digital dichotomy.

I think this is a real possibility with the new xl actuators. They can lift the boom to a greater vertical angle. This was one of the limitations of 42009.

Respectfully, I am not sure what you think you read here that supports the claim that paper "attacks" the eyes in the same way electronic screens do. In fact, I searched the reference and it didn't even mention the word "paper"..... not even once. So, I am not sure how a comparison can be made. But in your comment you certainly made a comparison. Essentially, all the reference you provided said was that perhaps screens do not permanently damage the eyes, but they do cause exhaustion and other irritability problems. And even this does not seem to be correct. Evidence is mounting of the problems blue light does cause . https://www.forbes.com/sites/fionamcmillan/2018/08/11/how-blue-light-damages-cells-in-your-eyes/#5b0c4bd8384b But the eye issue really is a red herring. I made the mistake as well. In my response to you I stated "paper does not affect the eyes the same way digital imaging does" when in reality I should have said something to the tune of "seeing paper images is not processed by the brain the same way that seeing the same images digitally does". That is what I should have said. I am not an eye expert, so the latter is much more accurate to what I can credibly speak to and also to the topic. My initial point was in reference to reading comprehension which is another way to say "information processing." And the brain processes digital information much differently than it does information presented on paper. For details on this, see my earlier comment. Also please note that it has less to do about digital vs. paper presentation, per se, and more about novelty vs. sameness in presentation And to the comments about any correlation between autism spectrum disorders and screen time, please just ignore them. They are reflective of the folks who have made them, but do not reflect any real truth. Obviously, offering folks that are naturally reclusive a device that aides that isolation does not help their plight, and only fosters it. But that is not a cause and effect relationship. @Maaboo35 already gave an accurate definition of the condition. I won't even give any retorts to that a breath, I recommend others don't as well

Very good point. No studies that I know of for picture scanning. However, it really should not make a difference. The focus should not be on just reading per se, nor the mental mechanism vision or reading, but on rather attention. Here is what I mean...... Caveat: I get the below is a generalization. EVERYONE WILL BE DIFFERENT, as will their jobs, etc. But typically, especially in our advanced techy society the following applies: When looking at computers all day we really don't read or or fully look at images. We scan. And we get used to when we find the information we need, we move on. That is typically the digital world. This is not so much a visual thing as it is an attention thing. WHen presented with information other than digital, there are a motley of different cognitive processes, typically with attention, that say something to the tune of "hey, this is a new type or format that information is presented to us, we really need to pay attention and take more time" - so what happens here is more attentional resources are dedicated to reading, scanning, etc. So it has less to do with lexical vs. visual reading and scanning and more to do with the attentional resources involved. In fact the part of vision dedicated to scanning one's environment is intimately tied to the same areas of the brain responsible for detecting novelty and assigning a hierarchical value to the stimuli coming in. Lexical or visual form. No matter. And a good rule of thumb in terms of how the brain works is that priority for attentional resources will always go to that which is novel. As I mentioned before its not so much that the medium of physical reading has that much of a better place in the brain than does digital reading. Its just that it (again, for the typical person) physical reading is a novel way to process information (after a typical day of digital reading at work), and therefore more attentional resources are dedicated towards it. Just because of its novelty. Conversely, as I have said before - if I have someone that reads on paper all day, but wants to really pay attention to something they need to read (or process, like Lego instructions) I might recommend just the opposite. I might recommend they read (or do instructions) digitally rather than via physical paper if digital viewing is not something they are accustomed to.....

No. Not correct at all. Without going into specifics or being too technical, paper does not affect the eyes the same way digital imaging does. Reflecting light is much different than emitting or creating light. Color-responding neurons see and know the differences and respond differently. Such information is also sent to different parts of the brain and traveled through different pathways.

Lol......your hidden comments are exactly what i have been thinking the whole time. I think the environmental debate (paper instructions) is bunk when applied to Lego for this exact reason. We are dealing with a product that is plastic. Anyone who has not been under a rock knows the damage plastic is doing to our oceans, etc....

I would not doubt it if they head in that direction, but I genuinely hope they do not. So many other companies have. Especially tech companies. You really cannot buy a tv, stereo equipment, etc. anymore with a physical manual. It is almost all online.

On the 42100 thread, page 51, there was a whole discussion of the above. I didn't want to distract more from the 42100 thread and I thought it was a good enough conversation to create a new topic. So lets discuss! The topic is whether TLG should just change to digital copies of instructions for environmental reasons or as cost saving methods, or remain the same and keep supplying paper-based instructions as always. One thing I would like to point out, that was not pointed out before, is that there is ample evidence to suggest that reading on paper facilitates comprehension more than reading digitally. Obviously there are some exceptions. What you are accustomed to, what you do all day, etc. There is also a generational gap, where younger generations typically are more receptive to digital presentation than older generations. Everyone is different. But, reading on paper offers a different medium than does digital presentation, and it does facilitate one to slow down and take one's time. Also, if someone struggles with headaches, reading on paper vs. digitally can help alleviate those HAs. In the past I have worked both as a student and an instructor writing or editing long reports or articles. I have found it helpful both for myself and for my students, if they write digitally, to print out their work when editing. It provides a different medium and the brain is a little more on alert to catch mistakes. There is a whole laundry list of automatic cognitive processes that occur when we read and write through the same medium (digitally) - over and over and over. So, naturally, the brain is not as cautious when reading something the same way. It "fills in" a lot of blanks. That is where using a different medium is very very helpful. In contrast, if I were working with someone who wrote and read on paper all day (rarely happens, but it does still happen), I would recommend they try reading something digitally if they really wanted to understand it. I have worked a lot with very old, geriatric patients who still read their news, write letters, etc. on paper. When they really want to comprehend something I recommend reading digitally - because again, it is something different. I usually have good outcomes with this. Because I write and read all day on screen, I really enjoy reading on paper. When I build Lego I don't even use software. Cant. So tired of the screen. If TLG were to actually completely do away with paper-based copies of instructions this would be a huge deal for me. I have no problem paying a little extra for paper-based instructions. For those interested in looking further. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003 https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317722961

Oh please dont. Those little things drive up the costs for all off us....

Suprised to see no comments yet. This is an excellent model. Thxs for sharing.

Indeed. It seems as though they used reverse rationale. Typically one would first have a reason prior to action. An action without a reason is well......you know......

This has nothing to do with the original post, and frankly, I think it detracts from Tommy's initial purpose. Lego is designed for kids, not adults with engineering degrees or special expertise. It's models will always fall short in the eyes of experts. As we see on this forum, there never has been, and there never will be, a model put out by TLG (or ANY company for that matter) that will meet the expectations of all buyers. If one takes this comment to heart, copying parts will always be justified. I can even hear, as we speak, Lepin enthusiests and other copy-cats saying under their breath "if TLG wants us to stop producing these models they need to offer sets at a more affordable price"..... But, far worse IMO is that this comment is lacks sound reasoning and is just plain false. It implies that if things are built well enough, no one will copy it. We all know nothing could be further from the truth in Lego building. The world at large teaches the same lesson. Things that are done with high quality and care are not immune to the negative aspects of humanity (such as taking advantage of others). If anything, they attract it. Also, it implies a dangerous, albeit abstract, idea which is "things that are stupid, wrong, built poorly, blah blah blah..... deserve to be taken advantage by others". This argument has been packaged in so many ways (ex: women who dress provocatively deserve to be taken advantage of) and is flat-out wrong. No, the real argument here, that has been discussed by others, is if there is true infringement going on here. For the record, I do not think it is and I agree with others, I think this is a very bad move for TLG. I feel, just as some AFOLs need to, that they really need to take stock and have some self-awareness of who they are. They are a company that produces a product to the masses. Their products will hit a main target, but will miss with experts. The experts will still buy their products, because they provide the basis of something they want to build, but they will want to modify, change it. No different than buying a stock car and modifying it. They should be grateful for these experts, and fully accept that with their money might come a slew of innovative products to enhance the original. Again, no different than in the car industry. They get free exposure and the expert's original money. Its like a perfect marriage if they can be willing to allow bright minds to expand their product. But moves like this really sour the relationship.....

There you go

Thank you as always Sariel. That which you consistently contribute to the Lego Community continues to benefit us all. Thorough and in depth. For my 2 cents, I really enjoy this set and will likely be getting it. Something that I was going to keep quiet about, but it has come up from a consistent complaint from others as well is the complaint that the model can't dig. In fact came up as a "con" on Sariel's review. I am not sure this is a fair complaint. Relatively speaking, the pieces that 42100 are trying to pick up are like the real machine trying to pick up a few 2-300 lb boulders. Just a few. If the real thing tried that in this configuration, it would likely just push them around too (especially if working on a hard surface that it could not "bite" into). It also needs to bulk of other material to push back on itself in order to pick anything up. The real thing works on mountains and mountains of rock, dirt, etc. Not single stones. If we really want to compare the digging abilities of the Lego model, it would also have to work out of mountains and mountains of material. The material has to have the weight of itself to push back on. TLG obviously can't provide THAT amount of material. Drive the price up even further. Can't AFOLs find something of their own to solve this problem? It's like if everything doesn't work exactly the way we want it to we fall apart. Others have complained that TLG has gotten "lazy." I wonder if the same could be said of us as AFOLs sometimes.....

A thread recommending changes will be up soon i am sure. One thing i would love to see is all fans spinning as soon as machine is turned on.

Got about 1/2 through before I had to take off. Very excited about this set. Building process seems fun and overall I love the machine. No B model doesn't bother me at all. The best ones are built from one's own mind- or undoubtedly some pretty cool ones will pop up shortly after its release. Initial impressions from watching 1/2 the video - I am surprised by the lack of spare parts for such a large and expensive set. The app actually looks pretty cool. I would feel more like I am actually operating a piece of machinery than any other app/electronic out there (BuWizz, etc.). I think this app, with the longer actuators would be absolutely perfect with a large mobile crane. These new actuators would actually allow 42009's boom to rise to a more functional level. I do hope a large crane, with the app and actuators is in our future.....

Lol....PM'd. This guy is creating quite a reputation for himself.