Bartybum

I'm totally in love with the set and disagree with some of your opinions, but you're definitely allowed to be both. You can like a set but still be disappointed with some of its features, and vice versa.

Lol I genuinely dunno if you're being sarcastic. You are, right?

It's besides the point because it's irrelevant to the conversation about the effect metallic CVs would have on the current price. Metallic CVs would make any set more expensive than plastic ones. That has nothing to do with the current price of the set, hence why I say it's besides the point. I'm assuming the suggestion for metal CVs would be that both parts are metallic.

I mean, that's really besides the point

Pls no lock. I still wanna contribute. I'm not sure having four contacts on the CV is possible - the wide neck would get in the way. The best solution probably would be to have metallic parts, but then I'm pretty sure they'd be prohibitively expensive.

Apparently not. I’m a big fan of them because they allow for smaller detailed models.

This could all be avoided if LEGO would just reinvest in longer travel springs. One stud is abysmal.

Mmmmm, this is what I want in a car set. I'm liking what I'm seeing

Wasn’t the issue that all the people who tried did the idiotic thing and used Unimog tyres? Because if so then I’m still not convinced 42082 couldn’t have been smaller.

Not that I’ll buy it, but it’s nice to finally see a mainline Falcon with properly scaled mandibles.

That’s a very strange way to spell 42043

I'm happy with there being cars as long as they're not replacing the construction/utility/transport vehicles that I much prefer.

Yep, that sounds exactly like playing with Lego. If you let your kids help build, problem solved. Also, you can find them other toys to play with as well - it’s not like this is suddenly going to be the only one they’ll ever play with. There’s a huge moving toy train in front of them. They’re going to be focused on it, not the phone.

Oh shit, I actually totally forgot about this. I see B-model and think of an entirely different model, not just a modification of the A-model. Yeah that would've really been nice

I’m hardly surprised it doesn’t have a B-model though. It’s the first batch of Control+ sets, and has a very complex control profile. I think for now it’s a good option to focus on a single model, because having two sets would just dilute the quality. I’m sure they considered it at some point.

Why are the plastic axle wheels bad again? Edit: never mind, just watched the above video. That's a bit of a pity

You realise gaming channels are popular because of the commentary right? People don’t watch gaming channels solely because of what game’s being played. It’s like watching your friends play games, only the communication is often one-way.

Oh man, another tried this argument on the Technic forum complaining about the new Control+ hubs using smartphone control. Quite frankly, there is a stark difference between using a smartphone in place of a physical controller, and using a smartphone to watch YouTube or play games.

At first glance I gawked completely at the price in AUD ($550 inc. GST), but after comparing it to the winter holiday train and calculating the $/pc I found that it comes out to be cheaper than the holiday train ($0.18pp vs $0.20pp), AND on top of that it's actually motorized. For a licensed Disney product this is actually pretty good value. Still won't buy it because I don't have the money though

@nerdsforprez Do you work with statistics for a living?

Okay, I think I understand. Since the data varies wildly, none of it is really consistent.

Sorry sorry, I meant R^2 closest to 1. Entirely my bad, I got R^2 inversely confused with relative error or whatever the stats term is.

I mean, the outcome of this entire study has to be based on statistics. Your question poses two linear problems: "How much does every kilogram cost?" "How much does every piece cost?" Both of these require that we model our data using a single linear regression for each, then see which line is better represented by its respective data, i.e. which line has data that lies closer to it, i.e. which line has the lowest R^2 value. Here, accuracy is directly a result of the internal consistency of each data set to its respective best fit. Obviously, modelling this as a single linear curve is a bad idea, because as we've directly seen with the data, the inclusion of PF and pneumatics throws everything for a loop. In this essence, I've gotta agree with Kodlovag that my curves aren't that valuable compared to his.

I'd really amend that word to consistently, it seems more technically correct

Nice work, could you also highlight the pneumatics sets in green (if both pneumatics and PF, do a green dot with a red outline), stick a number next to each PF set that describes how many PF components (and pneumatic cylinders/pumps) it includes, and label the outliers with their respective set numbers? I think you’ve also forgotten to highlight 42082 as PF. Reason I ask is that I’d like to see how the inclusion of PF and/or pneumatics throw the usefulness of PPP and PPG for a loop, and how that scales depending on how many PF/pneumatics components are added. The first two graphs indicate to me that both PPP and PPG seem to be equally appropriate since they exhibit really similar behaviour. Both remain constant enough, but really begin to break down once you either a) include pneumatics and/or PF, or b) go below 1k pieces. The time history graphs should indicate how constant or varied the usefulness has been over time, and whether Lego has been upping the PPP or PPG or not. The comparison of PPP and PPG shows me that both are pretty much equally appropriate to use to determine the worth of a set.