nerdsforprez

Well, lets hope the bug gets fixed soon. Based on the looks of the rear tires, this thing really zips.....

Looking forward to it... but sorry to say I can't see the images.

Unique build at this scale. Congrats. Very well executed.

Yea- I suspected as much. It would be difficult to take the exact same pic. with same lighting twice. A lot of variability. Anyways, not that the non-glossed look is really a bad thing. Now that I think of it, the second pic you added almost looks like a matte color. Which I actually love on like muscle cars. If indeed this is accurate (lighting concerns aside) that would actually be really cool if applied to like a black muscle car MOC.

No, not when there are these micro abrasions. It may be shiney, but the microabrasions will still show :)

Its a nice idea, but im not sold. Admittedly it would be nice to see the first pic without the red circles. They kinda obscure what we are supposed to be looking at. Also, in the second pic, although an improvement over the first pic, certainly not new. There seems to be the characteristic microabrasions of any old piece. Doesn't have the luster, mirror-like smoothness of new pieces. In fact, after looking longer, it actually seems to cause some of those microabrasions. Look at the dimple by the second circle to the left (especially to the left of the dimple).... see how mirror-like the surface is? It is flawless (aside from the scuffs you mention). Aside from the scuffs, the sheen of the overall piece is quite distinct from the second picture. I think the overall dullness of the surface in the second pic is worse than the first. Not sure would use the stuff at all.

I think this is already torn down so this probably wont be much help, at least not for this project. But, bar elements through black pics really strengthen connections and are a 100% Lego solution. If building something like this in the future you may want to consider that. Yes, it would be a lot of bar elements, but if you are really determined, it is at least something to try.

Just saw the crawler crane review. Disappointed with the poor ratings (justified). The outriggers are a real disappointment. They are meant to stabilize the crane. Why have them if they are not stable themselves!

Yes I know it would be huge. Perhaps not "fairly easy" in terms of it being redundant. Something to the tune of Lucio Switch's trucks. And 2x bigger would only be in scale. For piece count, it would be something to the tune of 4-6x because of the exponential relationship between scale and piece count.

Does look like a good set. Would be really cool to see someone scale it to be used with the unimog tires. I know it would be huge, but probably fairly easy to do. Could perhaps house cars the size of 1/10? Like 8070 perhaps? 42077?

After going through all 20 pages of this thread ( I will be updating my 42083 soon) I was surprised to see no comments on this change above: IMO, this is the best change recommended for the C shape on the outside of the Bugatti. Instead of the annoying and disrupting clip pieces on the sides the T connector for pneumatic hosing looks great. nearly no disruption of the C. I think this is a change I will apply. Also, just so I am clear here….. for the various changes (HOG steering, improved from end, simplified gearbox, etc.) each is in the instructions? So, if one wants to pick and choose which he/she would like to apply they just have to do that selection as they go through the instructions? Is this correct?

Looking good. Keep posting updates. I am sure I will have more to say with more pics.

I am not a fan of the set but in efforts to be fair and balanced the whole price per piece argument really needs to die. I have pointed this out, as well as others, that the correlation between a sets weight and price is much higher than a sets piece count and price. The latter really is an outdated and inaccurate measurement of a sets cost. Think overall amount of ABS (or, in this case, other material) not just piece count. Also, you really are extrapolating here. You haven't even considered the new elements (aside from power up elements). The new hubs, etc. are gonna be pricey people. I don't work even remotely in the field and even I understand this one principle. R & D is expensive folks. For TLG, R & D is akin to coming out with a whole new power system. Not to mention new elements. I don't think it can be compared to old sets in any way that carries validity. Yes, my thoughts exactly. I have built several crawlers, no need to repost them here.... but have used 2.2 RC tires. 2.2 tires are much bigger and heaviier than those on this set, and with two XL motors my crawlers have performed just fine. Outperformed 42099 big time. But, the were also geared down much more. Much slower (except for my PunkTaco NYC version, which was BuWizz powered).

Yes, given that it was my post that was referred to in a non English language (I only speak English and Spanish), i cant respond. Sorry.

I would certainly be interested in more photos and perhaps even a video. No matter how many renditions of these cranes there are, they never get old, at least not for me. Love that you are also actually using blueprints and scaling metrics. Yours looks very promising.

I mean no disrespect by the following post. In fact, I think this thread is a great idea. It is one of the few that I actually took the time to look at all the pages and read the content! Great to see the real-life comparisons of all the models. However, if the purpose is to compare the models, a little more time and effort in the pictures would be nice. Most are pretty blurry by today's standards, and there is much clutter in the background. Most pictures one has difficulty distinguishing where one model begins and when the other ends. Defining boundaries of the sets is very difficult. Perhaps it would be good to invest in a better camera. Doesn't have to be anything expensive. Nowadays, pretty much anything will at least take clear pics. Or for a no-cost solution, at least remove all the background stuff, and place like a white sheet or something as the background and floor. But overall, great idea of a thread. My recommendations only serve as a reflection of my interest in the post.

If folks go to the BL color guide you can see the colors (digitally) almost (not quite) side by side. If you can, a great shot would be regular orange (like that used in the Unimog) and the flame yellow orange side by side in real life......

You and I are on the same sheet of music in terms of this set being a toy, can be modded freely, and the set not being a great crawler out of the box. But poor performance will be the complaints from the starting gate. Perhaps not from you or I but they will come. That and the price. They have already begun. I guess my comments were in reference to that. If performance is what folks are really going for, I was curious why not just for for the MOC option which will produce a much better crawler. My mind was set on @PunkTacoNYC's crawlers. Extremely extremlely capable and, from memory, only 6-800 pieces, most of which were common elements that should already be in AFOL's collection. I wasn't assuming building from no collection at all, so motors, some bricks etc. should be a given. But I suppose if one does not have any motor, bricks, etc. then the price would be comparable. Also, I haven't checked up on BuWizz prices. Have they gone up? I bought mine when it was beginning on kickstarter, and I think I paid 79.99 or something in USD. But yes, "for a fraction of the cost" would certainly be an exaggeration of zero elements from the start were the assumption.

Goodness, i remember this fantasy from my teens. Wonderful recreating her in Lego. Im assuming functions are all manual? And more pics of like the engine and opened back would be great.

So im wondering what might be the appeal to those you that are all-in in terms of buying this. As a parts pack it may offer some cool new elements i guess, by my, thats a heafty price. If performance if what your after, why now just BL some of the great rock-climbing MOCs that are out there, investing in a Buwizz or something, and having something that performs much better at a fraction of the cost?

That is an interesting way to look at what constitutes quality of outcome. Very analytic, almost academic. I hadn't thought of it that way. Though I don't think many others see quality of outcome the same, it is an interesting idea. It also highlights our common ground. TLG does have different goals from the beginning compared to MOCers, and more constraints. "parameters" is just another way of saying constraints. The parameters of needing to work within the demands of a world wide market. It proves what I have been saying all along. Yes. You are correct. MOCers can have constraints, but certainly not the constraints of having to work within a world-wide market. So vastly different I am not sure of the productivity of continuing this point. Also, the constraints you speak of are self-imposed, not imposed because the goals of the build to begin with are different. This is a big difference. Again, to clarify the argument, I am saying model outcome quality between TLG and MOCers can't be the same b/c the beginning goals are different so vastly different. Sounds like folks can agree on this. This isn't rocket-science and shouldn't be inflammatory. If MOCers are imposing constraints on their build much like that of TLG (playability, etc.) then they are beginning with goals and a target audience much like TLG - and the argument loses bite. Not because it falls apart - but because it is proven valid. If beginning goals are aligned, then quality of outcome will be aligned as well. I don't think most MOCers try to think like TLG when building, I don't think most self-impose limits, certainly not the limits to the extent of TLG b/c they are not trying to sell their MOC to millions of people. At least not the tangible product. Perhaps the idea, but but not the tangible MOC. Therefore my comments on the difference between quality of outcome. This is a good comment one that I will get to below. BLUF though (bottom line up front) is I don't think we do need a reviewer. The court of public opinion says quite a bit (see below). **break** All good comments, but honestly, I probably will step back a little from the debate. Few reasons: 1 - I agree that focusing on the quality of outcome of a MOC versus an official Lego set is a bit too tangled. Too much room for debate loopholes which I am afraid folks may be taking advantage of. Definition of quality of outcome is too subjective and would need clarification if that argument were to go anywhere. 2 - The argument can be stripped to its main point, which is NOT about quality of outcome. Main point is the lack of utility of comparing the two because the beginning goals are vastly different. By way of this, of course the quality of outcome is going to be different. The latter is heavily linked to the former, but it is not the former nor the main central point. I think that folks can agree with the main point, which by way of deduction will lead us to this conclusion: If beginning goals are different, then the quality of outcome will be different as well. I think this may be productive and agreed upon. The argument falls apart if the "difference" here is defined as "better than" for reasons I have already explained. 3 - Lastly - and I truly don't mean to be inflammatory here, but I just have to say it. I just have to. I can't help but feel those arguing for equality in quality of outcome, or even the superiority of TLG sets over MOCs is a tad bit disingenuous. Admittedly, as already explained, there are loopholes in the whole "better than" argument because of the subjectivity of what "better than" means and I am afraid folks might be taking advantage of this. Why do I feel this way? Well, even considering @Anio's remark below, which I do think has quite a bit of validity to it Consider this. Virtually every official set is ripped apart in some way, shape or form by the community. Even beloved sets like AROCs. Crane too small, too weak, wheel arches too high, etc. etc. Even when the overall voice is positive about the set there are always some complaints. Many complaints. But since my comments all the sudden they are not only on par with our most esteemed builders, they are better than them? All the sudden they are modular, pristine in their building techniques, uses of angles, great functionality, part usage, etc. Com'on. You go back through official set postings and these are all the things that folks complain about - not laud. I mean, and I get that 42043 and 42 are probably more sets to measure against but they are what come to recent memory, - neither of these sets had much modularity, and BOTH were heavily criticized to inflating part counts, BOTH were criticized for poor building experience, etc. Yet when MOCs are posted, and granted not ANY MOC but those from some of out most esteemed builders, there can be threads several pages long with virtually no complaints. I won't name any builders, but I have gone back through some builders posting and in just an hour or so and found at least three MOCers with submissions with dozens upon dozens of comments, across multiple submitted MOCs with virtually no complaints. Perhaps this is due to @Anio's comment above - and I think this is part of it yes. But perhaps it is because the starting goals between TLG and MOCers are not comparable, and therefore neither are the outcomes. I believe it is the latter. I think there are many that still want to defend against this - probably because they think I am stating something inflammatory. Again folks, there really is no need to take this stance. I do not think what I am saying is inflammatory at all (btw, it might be helpful to keep in mind that the original person to whom my first comments were directed has publicly came out and said he agrees with me). As I have said all along, I don't think it is even very logical thinking to want them to be comparable. I don't want TLG to produce builds for reasons MOCers do. I don't even want them to produce an outcome similar in quality as the most esteemed builders because it would detract them from their main goals - to exist in the business world. I want them to produce LEGO. Thats it. It gives us the hobby we have today. I want them to do it the best they can given the constraints of the business world, but I want them to keep those constraints. It allows them to produce billions upon billions of their product which is good for all of us. Individual MOCers may have some constraints, but certainly not the constraints embedded in TLG's goal and mission to operate in the worldwide market.

No in fact I think you summarized this whole thread the best. In fact, I am tempted to change the whole debated topic. Here is why: The whole conversation started because I said "MOCs will always be better." Now, while I stand by that, I admit that "better" is too loaded a concept, and too lacking in precision than no real good discussion can come of it. Too subjective. If I were to redo this topic, it would go something like this: Okay, lets take out any comparison of an end result of a build. Official set or MOC by an AFOL. End product is irrelevant. Lets not focus on that any more. The original comment I made was just one in context of the overall point I was making. And that point is that you cannot compare the two b/c their beginning goals are so vastly different. I stated you cannot compare the end result because the goals from the beginning are so vastly different. Perhaps that is where we can achieve some common ground. I think all good discussion comes from at least finding a mutual point you can agree on. And the difficulties you pointed out in trying to compare MOCs with official sets is that starting point. At least for me. In line with my last comment with @allanp perhaps this is where we can achieve some common ground. Not that I agree with your statement, but I do agree, as I did from the beginning, there is too much ambiguity in what we mean by the "best." You offer some good points and interpretation of what "best" might be here. But this will differ from person to person and not really what I want to focus on. Perhaps, as I said in my last statement, we should focus less on the end result for comparison (because it is too subjective) and more on I think that comparing MOCs and original sets in the first place lacks utility because their initial starting points (goals) are so different. I wonder if we can at least agree on that.

Sorry for cutting your portion out. I guess I need to read more thoroughly myself. Good points. I guess we will continue to disagree though - but that's not a problem I think the discussion, in and of itself is good. I actually interpret the time issue completely opposite. Go figure right? Yea, TLG folks have 9-5 to work. But they have a deadline and we ALL know there have been several set releases prematurely due to rushes because of this deadline(*cough* 42056 *cough*). MOCers have NO deadline other than their own patience. For some (and again, we are talking the best of the best) will spend a year or more on a MOC. Therefore, for the time factor - I see it totally in the favor of MOCers not TLG. They could take 5 years if they wanted. And about the AROCS - indeed it was a good set. But sorry man, ever build Madoca's builds, or @Didumos69's or a host of others? And 42099 better than current crawlers? Oh wow - no. Lets use something objective - say, actually climbing abilities. @PunkTacoNYC's crawler's beat TLG hand over fist. I know he uses buwizz and sbrick but like you said TLG is creating new elements all the time so I don't think that is really a valid complaint given the disparity of different climbing abilities.

Hmmm... if torque seems similar to PF L motor, and speed is obviously faster than XL (more like PF L motor) then really perhaps all we got is a L motor called PU XL motor. So far it seems that folk's opinion seems pretty high towards it, but this should be kept in mind.