Bartybum

Great to hear, thank you :)

Ah man this is so cool, great job I hate to be impolite, but is there any chance at instructions or some more detailed photos in the near future? The breakaway view helped greatly, but there’s still bits scattered around I haven’t been able to figure out.

While true, I feel like that’s besides the point, because they’re always gonna do that.

The Nebulon-B and GR-75 would like to have a word with you (so would all of the Royal Naboo Starships, but they're chrome and curvy and impossible). A bunch of prequel-era transports and some Old Republic ships might as well.

I remember that while watching Sariel's interview with Markus Kossman (42100's designer), Markus briefly commented that 42100 was taking Technic close to its limits, whereas 42055 perhaps went over those limits. If that's anything to go by then it's possible that the Technic team might not want to go larger than 4K any time soon (totally fine by me, 4K is an appropriate ceiling imo).

Oof, definitely not a fan of that colour match-up. White/LBG would only work for steel wheels imo, but we don't have any unfortunately. Someone could design some and upload to Thingiverse :P

Do the stick pistons really bounce around that much? That's pretty much the only reason I thought it was CGI/some sort of physics simulation. That and the colour palette suddenly changing.

Nice, any idea if there'll be any more extended footage later? It'd be awesome to see the full mechanism. Also, lol at that CGI at 1:36

Looks really nice. Any chance at a video of it? I might end up wanting to build it this way once I get it. I'd also be really interested to see if someone can come up with the normal facing shovel variant as a B-model, or even with extra parts.

Since there's only two data points, I wouldn't be so comfortable asserting there's a pattern here just yet. So far all this just seems like wishful thinking.

There's some key steps needed for C+ to make both SBrick and BuWizz obsolete imo: Custom control profiles - pretty sure they're already coming, but I did hear something about the PU app being the place for that, so I'm not sure what to think yet. A much smaller hub - a large draw towards SBrick is its compact size and easy integration into PF. It allows you to use the LiPo/train battery box, which is pretty much universally loved by AFOLs. Once C+ has been going for long enough that MOCcers have moved on from PF (yes yes I'm aware a bunch of you won't), then I think we'll see it beginning to kill SBrick. BuWizz is even better because it's more compact than even the SBrick/LiPo combination. The generally unwieldy size of the C+ hub makes it unsuitable for smaller MOCs. I've heard they want to introduce a smaller hub in the future though, so this could be on the horizon. More accessible C+ motors, through smaller motorised sets - done with a much smaller hub and/or a dumb battery box. C+ will likely never make BuWizz obsolete though, solely because BuWizz has different power output levels, some of which are very high. Lego likely won't go this way, since higher power and speeds introduce more part wear.

I bought it for 20% off RRP at Target (Australia) for ~$260AU, and my god is the olive green beautiful

wouldn't a more accurate metric be the length of the model, especially when we have anomalies like 42096?

I find myself treating 42055 and 42100 separately, weirdly enough. I see the BWE as a huge toy, but the R9800 as a model. I kinda have to agree though; 42055's sheer, imposing size just takes the cake. That being said, 42100 definitely comes in very closely as the queen. Buuuuut back to what I was gonna talk about earlier. After mulling over it, I've decided that there haven't been enough 4K models for me to come to a conclusion about the reasons behind the lack of a B-model. For now I'm happy with the notion that implementing another C+ profile for a 4K B-model may be too much for the first time round, especially when they're probably just trying to get a C+ set successfully working. In the future I'm hoping we'll see C+ sets with B-models. I suppose it's a bit of a bummer, but I wouldn't say that it makes me sick like someone else did earlier ( by the way). Ah, and @Zerobricks, releasing a B-model a few weeks down the line just eats into the development cycle of the following set.

Haven’t all the recent combination gearboxes been rather crap though? Lots of slack and whatnot

Hold up, how do these extend if there's no axle opening at the back? Is there an electric motor inside?

I think it’s 1/10

Does anyone here remember whether Markus also designed 42055's B-model? I wanna respond to this comment but what I wanna say depends on who designed 42055-B.

@suffocation why specifically 4 XL motors?

Got it for 20% off last night, checked again like an hour later and it was sold out. Hehehe

Don't worry, you're not old fashioned, you just have personal preferences. I prefer a book because there's no artificial light to bother me, and I can attest to it being therapeutic. There's definitely a sense of tranquility. However, sometimes a book takes up a really annoying amount of space, and if it isn't ring bound then the spine crease sticks out like a mountain, and the booklet can then sometimes slip shut. I can totally understand why some people prefer screens, even if I don't.

I suspect that both C+ models don't have B-models for the reason that was speculated towards the end of last page - it'd take too much time making another profile. I can see TLG not really wanting to half-axle a C+ profile for a B-model (no achievements, no small videos, etc.), so it doesn't come as a surprise to me that they'd just completely omit it and focus on an A-model. Either way I'm not fussed, because B-models take time away from A-models, and most of these A-models are very nice.

They're taking on trademark infringements, not copyrighted designs. My issue is that these trademark infringements are against models that aren't even being sold to begin with - that's why I'm saying it's a dick move.

I can't accept this - not only is it speculative of how people would react to a kid swallowing a choking hazard (I think most people would just say "well duh, don't let your kid play with choking hazards"), but it also doesn't factor the near statistical impossibility of it ever happening to begin with. The odds of a kid choking on printed Lego are so much smaller than for real Lego, purely by how much more exposed kids are to real Lego. It also doesn't consider the removal of large Lego elements, such as the giant mug and parrot. I can't buy the notion that it's to do with safety in any way. Generally speaking, kids don't choke on printed Lego because kids don't play with printed Lego. Play nice my dude, we're talking about toys here

But so many of them were available for free. Nobody was charging anyone for anything