nerdsforprez

"in most cases it does" - no man, again I don't think you are understanding. Perhaps there is a language barrier, and I get it if there is. If that is what is going on, then perhaps we should just call it Here is the whole statement: I specifically said that I we are discussing "MOCs from the most talented among us - not novices or your run-of-the-mill hobbists (sic)" This does not fall under the definition of typical or general builder. and to that last part you said .... "in most cases it does" Are you trying to suggest that when i say MOCs from the most talented among us those are the same as novices and run-of-the mills builders? B/c that just plain does not make sense. @Anio- you need to offer some logic or rationale to your statements. I did to all mine. You simply cannot say "it totally does" and leave it at that. I know you see yourself as an authority figure here but you need to back your statements up. Wow, this is a generalist statement. Virtually ALL MOCs? Okay, i'm sounding like a broken record here. Again, not what we are discussing.

Ok, Game On! No just joking, I am not trying to be divisive here. But thanks for making this thread. Also, is there a way no not put @allanp's comment here? B/c it does deal with the 42099 content, not this tread content. But really guys if we are to debate this then we need to remain precise. I am not saying that official sets can't beat "some MOCs". Of course they can! Take a look at mine! Nearly EVERY official set is better than something I could produce. But as I said like several times before, that is NOT what is being debated here. We are discussing pitting the BEST of what original sets have to offer against the best MOCS. One has like a gajillion constraints on it, and the other does not. It also remains to be seen what we mean by "the best." If are going to define "the best" by building experience, then that is a whole different argument. I guess for this to really go anywhere. That would need to be decided. But good luck with that And com'on! Modularity and not using a zillion parts for simple mechanisms? Are you guys building the same sets as everyone else? If your using modularity and judicious piece count decision-making as metrics then I'm sorry I just don't see it. 42042 and 3 were jokes in both those departments where several MOCs are terrific there. I guess MOC selection really is also an issue because i know several MOCs that beat original sets hand over fist in both these departments Again, we are not referring to general or common MOCs, but the best out there.

Exactly. And I for one don't even WANT them to try and pursue the coolest or bestest or whatever build trophy. I just want them to continue to keep producing. I mean good sets, yea, but I want them to be LEGO, and AFOLs to be MOCers. TLG produces the billions and billions of pieces, and we build cool things with 'em Also, Jerry, since you have access to both old and new XL motors, can you mention anything about the perceived torque? You compare the speed which is great, but can you tell us how easily stalled the motor is?

Well, in all fairness we didn't lay out the definition of what "better" means did we. My original comment was made in reference to the "better" made by @syclone. So we really don't know what "better" means here - But in that spirit, you have no idea what I based my "opinion" on. Playability, looks, etc. - you are not sure. Also, you mention "typically" and "generally" to argue your point thus demonstrating that you didn't even fully read my comment. I specifically said that I we are discussing "MOCs from the most talented among us - not novices or your run-of-the-mill hobbists (sic)". This does not fall under the definition of typical or general builder. So, respectfully, you have offered nothing to back your claim and only once again demonstrated that you don't fully read others comments before you respond. This is cute saying, something that would go great on the inside of a book cover or bumper sticker. Unfortunately, it simply does not apply here. The reason is simple. Let's define what we mean by constraint. We are not talking about outside forces that are constraining the building process of two individuals building something with a common goal. If that were the case you could possibly be right. But no. The "constraint" isn't an outside force limiting the building process - it is that the goal itself is not the same as AFOLs building MOCs as it is for TLG. I am not saying that TLG builders are not capable of building something better than or equal to AFOLs, I am saying they can't possibly because its not ever their goal in the first place. THAT is the constraint. I am not trying to be divisive here. It really is simple. You cant compare the "best" MOCs to the "best" original sets produced by TLG, no matter your definition of "best" because the goals each is trying to produce are entirely different. One is building for pleasure and self interests (whatever that may be) and the other is building to sell a product to the masses. And, to take the argument further we shouldn't even WANT to the two compared. If TLG started to be concerned entirely with competing with individual MOCers then undoubtedly their audience would shrink. Less demand means less product. Less product means less.... well, you get the picture, I already laid that out in my last comment. Again, not trying to be divisive - this phenomenon manifests an innumerable amount of times the the world over. Two entities can't be judged on the outcome of their product when their goals for that product are incompatible in the first place. The ONLY way this does not hold is if TLG comes out and says - okay for 421** we are not going to try and sell it to folks. We just want to make the best build possible (what ever that means). Our GOAL for producing 421** is to build the coolest, most functional, etc. blah blah blah build out there. **break** I don't really want this to go down a worm hole and detract from the thread. I would love to continue discussing it, because I do think it is an important discussion. Just not here. Jim - if we get more comments for this please just create a new thread or something.

Perhaps this would be a great thread to start as debating this will detract from the topic. But to your response I respectfully say "prove it." And lets be clear here. I was talking about MOCs from the most talented among us - not novices or your run-of-the-mill hobbists. Not folks like me As I said before, this is not an opinion. It is a mere fact arrived at from deduction. One has not only some constraints, but many. The other has none. Unless you consider individual thinking versus groupthink - which our MOCers have proved this does not hold. One does not need to look far for proof here. Look at Lego Ideas.

In all fairness, you did warn us prior to your rant . Here is a little one of my own. But just a small one - I swear - your points are well taken. I actually agree with many of your complaints about the model. But, about the comparison of TLG products and individual MOC builds, you lost me...... Folks need to understand a few things. And I know I sound like a broken record but apparently people are not getting the message. And I am not stating this as a Lego apologist. I have been critical on several aspects of this and other recent sets as well. But we need to be fair and balanced of our opinions of TLG - and the following is not merely an opinion. It just is. You cannot compare MOCs and sets TLG puts out. You just cannot. MOCs will ALWAYS be better. It is not an opinion, it is simply a fact derived from deduction. You state "being an enormous company" as if it is a positive thing in the context of building the best set. But it is NOT. "Being and enormous company" in the context of what is being discussed is something that holds TLG back. Not helps it forward. It has so many hoops, opinions, constraints, etc. that is has to go through prior to approval. Guess how many constraints, boards, or opinions a MOC has to go through. Zero (unless you count the builder). Take our best builders, have them produce something, then have that MOC go through 100 different opinions, a hundred constraints, the approval of a dozen folks that likely aren't even mechanically educated or focused (company brass), all with the authority to change the product and you will get a diluted product relative to the original. Then... on top of all that, change the population the MOC has to be built for (MOCs have no constraints here, whereas a Lego product has a ton) and well, you can see where I am going here. And as bad as it sounds... it really is not. The fact that TLG is first and foremost concerned about their bottom line IS NOT A BAD THING. Here is why: It allows them to be enormous. It allows them to be huge. Which allows them to expand and produce billions of parts for the world to play with. Billions upon billions. This allows each individual on this site to have thousands, tens of thousands, some with hundreds of thousands of parts to create, build, etc. If TLG were not concerned about its bottom line it would not allow them to produce the amount of product it now does. Our collections would be in the hundreds, not thousands of pieces. Simply a number game. Succinctly put: TLG's target population goals for production, etc. for a set is different than individual AFOLs MOCs which limits, not enhances, the end product. And I am glad this is the case. If they tried to build the biggest, baddest model, it undoubtedly would sell less because the target population is smaller. Again, not an opinion, just numbers sense. You see it in the world of product production the world over. Less product means less pieces produced. In the end, that limits my collection, and it limits yours. Which hopefully we can agree is a bad thing. It is not different in the world of other similar products one might enjoy. You will never get an RC crawler/race car as cool as the one's modified or built by the most talented and ardent fans. World of computer building - good night! Same thing and multiply it by like a billion. Real off-road crawlers, drag racers, etc., same thing. Virtually everywhere in hobby you will find this phenomenon.

It is a difficult part of the build, you are not thw only one having problems. But keep at it, it is doable!

I agree. I think there are many possibilities. Seems like the preference is bimodal. Certainly there are those that dont like the color. But there are plenty that do. Any type of rock crawler or off road machine i think would be great in this color.

Im not sure what you were trying to show here. I dont speak the language so perhaps i missed a ton. But they all seemed ill equipped to make any sort of real climb. And if ur referring to around the 18 minute mark all the snow was gone. Clearly driving in the tracks of others. Personally, i didnt see anything that couldnt be explained by driver variability or different conditions. But again, i listened with the audio off.

As i mentioned....u can make it as big as u want. Ill play with it, but i think ill actually keep it kinda small. One, i dont want whatever the build it to keep falling in. Two, its not meant to house all my pieces obviously. In the background will be all my drawers. I only want working pieces in the grooves.

Over at TLG headquarters they are bringing out the booze and party poppers. They r gonna party like its the 80s. Their mission is achieved....

Reminds me of 42096. Not in looks obviously but in concept. Overuse of cheese slopes = "Look fine from a distance but horrible up close"

Blasphemous!! On so many levels !

Yes. In Seoul. Yea, the size of the slot can vary to whatever the person wants. These pics were just to provide a simple visual. Also, I don't think one would like to make it too wide, then your creation would continuously be falling in. I think I want to keep it somewhat narrow to avoid this.

Or.....the first set in a new genre. Called "Creachnic"

Coffins are also perfect for laundered cash....stolen after the gang strife....

Slim indeed. And funny, i just zoomed in and realized the "coffin" separate from the 5x11 panels lol....before i was seeing them as joined

we're talking about the whole fixture in top. Not just the orange element. Looks like a pf battery box WITH your listed part as 5he switch.

I wonder what most folk's problems with the arches are. That they are too bulky, stick out too far? Or that they are too square (angles are almost 90 degrees)? I know for me personally it is the latter....

I know we have a Lego collection/display thread - but this did not seem to really fit that topic. Also, though this could be in the general theme, I really only post here and think it best applies to the folks here. Also, with all the mechanical/industrial-looking elements in the technic line I think this applies better than with regular Lego elements. Jim - if you disagree feel free to move this topic. I am still far away from my dream of building a real hobby/lego room, not for financial reasons but for geographic stability (Military therefore I move frequently). Right now I live in Korea and I live right next to a wonderful store that sells beautiful wood slabs (completely legal, they have license for each piece they sell). By now many have probably seen something like the below. "river" table, or resin tables. They are all over on pinterest, google photos, or other sites. Here are a few pics below but if this is new to you just google and you'll get tons of examples. These tables have the exact feel and look that I am going for in my future lego/hobby room. It will have a steampunk and industrial feel, with lots of natural wood, steel, and other metal features. I recently bought two large slabs and was thinking of fixing them not with resin in the middle like these river tables, but with like metal rods or something like that. However, then I thought of this idea. Buy one large slab, place it beneath, then place two, ends that are naturally mismatched slabs above with a grove in the middle that meets at both ends. It would be easy to affix them together at the ends with industrial, stylish brackets, leaving the groove intact. Something like the below. The slab below serves as the bottom - you get the idea. Instead of filling it with resin or other filler, fill it with Lego. Use it as a functional, but also good looking table. IMO - a great example of both function and form. The elements could not spill to the floor when rummaging for parts, and the groove is still narrow enough that what you are building is not likely to fall into it. The below are just shelves, not the actual slabs, I wanted to just image the thing with the shelves I had already bought. So the real thing will be larger. Thoughts?

Almost looks like a PF battery box (I know it is not) with the orange element sticking out.

Lol "and maybe you can be patient....." Settle down. Just mimicking what has already been stated by others. Perhaps you can understand the context that the original comment was made in. Sets years ago released in certain colors have not yielded much in terms of additional pieces in those colors. In the context of the comment, "patience" has not paid off.

I dunno. I actually like the color and prefer it to the first picture, even if this is an accurate color for a Land Rover. I agree that the color in the statue of L. is a better match to the first pic, but even the first pic I don't like. Too "easter-color" - like. Too light. its almost teal for god's sake. Like it or not, it actually matches a lot of (at least american-made) off road vehicle color palettes. Could have been a little darker though. But I do agree, too many colors in not enough elements. Good for single models but bad for what I thought the whole Lego motto was supposed to stand for. Creativity and building something on your own. In addition, would the excessive wheel arches be trying to mimic something like the above? I know this is not completely consistent with the actual model they are mimicking (Land Rover) but on the real vehicle there are large wheel arches. And there is a tendency to over-exaggerate wheel arches on off-road vehicles.

candies and little birds..... you are hooked up :)

Actually, I don’t think that customary planetary hubs are too large at all. In fact, they kinda bring me to my thinking on this set should I chose to purchase it. The portal wheel hubs however do make applying custom planetary gear hubs difficult. I know I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but I will likely almost always advocate for third-party tires – and it is the same for this set. Though the Claas tires are in improvement over the old, large balloon tires, they are still Lego tires. They are not soft, not sticky. They do not compress at all. Tread is only one part of the goal of good off-road tires. Other complimentary pieces are stickiness and ability to bend and mold to rocks, surface, etc. With that in mind, I wonder with the ground clearance if 2.2 tires cannot be used. If the portal hubs are not needed then a custom planetary gear system in the hubs is easy. This is what I did with a crawler of mine years ago and it worked great. I actually think the speed for 42099 shown in the videos is still too fast. I would avoid the gearing up in the drive train if I purchase it. Or gear it down further with custom P. gears in the hubs and use 2.2 tires.