howitzer

I'm sure all the designers are capable of producing interesting and high quality technical sets. It's the marketing and finances departments which set the limits and forces the designers to make sets that are sometimes absurd and lackluster. For example, I believe 42069 was originally designed with proper off-road wheels, but the marketing department thought tracks would look cooler, even if they made no sense at all. And then there was the 42112, which wasn't a bad set but had some really obvious cosmetic flaws, such that could've been fixed with only a few additional parts, so that I can only assume the designer had to work with a very tight parts limit constraint which forced those omissions.

Yeah, empty shell-sets like those are pretty stupid here in Technic theme.

I actually never thought the Liebherr was a bad set in any sense. Just well out of my budget, even if you did get a decent bang for the buck. I do prefer my Lego purchases smaller and less expensive, the Volvo hauler is about the most expensive I'm willing to get, and that only with a significant discount (I bought mine for 145€). At the moment it seems that the Cat is fine set too, I think it looks good and has enough functionality to be interesting. It's just much, much too expensive for what it offers. I might buy it if I got a HUGE discount but not otherwise, even if it probably offers a great building experience and is a nice parts pack. As for the other large sets of the last few years... I have 42055 and 42082, and they both are great sets, really interesting functions and well designed, along with having a good selection of parts. They also both included just one dumb motor and battery box, so the price was really fair. I see absolutely no problem with TLG making sets like them, but I fear that C+ and its gimmicks have superseded motorized sets with simpler electronics.. Hopefully they will make a comeback soon.

Because they switched only the LBG casing to black. Also changing the DBG parts (piston end, base, bracket) would've required three additional new elements, and there's not much point in that.

I've often wondered why they left 8868 with just 952 parts. The magical 1000 piece threshold would've been pretty easy to cross adding steering wheel, openable doors and perhaps brick-built seats, and one would think it would've been nice marketing gimmick. Not that it matters, it's still one of the all-time greatest sets. Anyway, the infuriating details: knobs instead of cranks. I hate turning them, and there's perfectly good, standard parts for making cranks, so why the knobs?

Well, yeah. But apparently the theme leads and marketing people at TLG disagree :(

This is the feeling I get also. It's also too big to be very playable, and the price of course puts it out of the budget of most kids (who are the ones most likely to play with such a thing). So yeah, a display item with some functions to show off, but mostly a dust collector.

Well, maybe we can now put to rest the doubts that some people were having on earlier info about the electronics in this set.

I'd rather guess it's going to be the other way around: the new wide tracks won't be used much, as they are impractically large for any but the largest of sets, while the previous 5L wide tracks are being used a lot even outside Technic, so no, they are not going anywhere.

Ymmv, but in my opinion the all-black colouring would've been a minor tweak at best, nowhere near important enough to warrant whole three additional new elements. And no, adding them wouldn't justify the price any more than it is now.

DBG mounts for LA's are perfectly in line with the old ones, as they also had DBG mounts and backsides, in addition to the piston's end attachment, they just changed the LBG part of LA's to black. For completely black LA they'd have to make 4 new elements instead of just one as they did now. I don't really see what additional value it would have brought to make them completely black.

Second this. Plus I really enjoy Jim's gorgeous photos, and in general I prefer pictorial reviews over video.

This point is actually very important, but also somewhat tricky. In this and in other contests, there have been models which clearly are aiming really high in complexity/functionality, and obviously show a lot of effort in the making of it, but still seem to fall short in answering the expectations. On the other end there are small, simple sets that are excellently executed and by all accounts perfect, except that they are still small and simple, and thus not very challenging to create. Between them are models that aim high enough that there must be a lot of effort and thought put into the design, but not so high as to be impossible to execute well. For me it seems that it's these in-between models that tend to be the most successful in contests. After all is said and done, I feel that my own entry was a bit on the simple side, but I'm still really happy with how it turned out and how well liked it was. I also enjoyed making it, and it still wasn't too simple as to pose no challenge at all.

I understand Kossman did the tow truck, and I don't think the same designer works on two separate models (at least not at large/flagship scale) in the same year.

My guess on how the information is obtained is that someone knows someone who is a keeper of a retail shop that has gotten the delivery of sets to be sold, and the person in charge of those sets has perhaps "bought" one of the sets for themselves and showed the information to one of their friends. So even if this is some sort of a breach of contract by the retailer's side, it's quite impossible to single out which one. The price seems high for 4 motors + 1 hub, but not so outlandishly high (remember, it's Lego, and a licensed flagship to boot) that I'd immediately dismiss the info as fake. But whatever, the official release and reviews will be out when they are out, so either way we'll see what's in the box soon enough.

Nice job! I've been wondering about building a concrete pumping truck based on the Arocs, as I've seen such a vehicle driving around quite a bit lately where I live. Though I envisioned it as pneumatic rather than LA-based, and with maybe more sections in the boom.

This kind of ruleset would work for me. The outdoor footage one is curious, because driving vehicle around outside would be great otherwise, but not everyone is equal to their ability to find a suitable outdoor place for driving it around. For example where I live during winter months I might be at work at daytime and the rest of the time it's dark, so any footage would be of very poor quality (plus I wouldn't want to expose my precious Lego to snow, rain, etc.).

Yeah, making an adequate video is by no means impossible, but I remember looking at the other contestants' videos for example the Mad Max contest, and there were some where the maker was clearly skilled and had access to great equipment. So obviously their videos looked great and made even the models look great, while others (mine included) were considerably more bland. As I said, I think video generally places too much emphasis on presentation and puts less skilled videographers at disadvantage. Still, video is a necessary evil in some kinds of contests, like the proposed GBC contest.

Anything that requires a video is a hard one, as not everyone has proper recording equipment and video editing skills. I mean, I know that a smartphone is technically enough, but while you can produce a video with it, a proper camera produces much better picture, not to mention lights etc. Editing is another matter completely, as it requires some skill to get it right and even more if you want to do some effects, music, etc. Of course with some types of models (GBC's etc.) a video is essential to show how it works (and that it works in the first place) but unless there's some kind of movement that's inherently important to the workings of the model, I'd say that video must not be mandatory. I feel that requiring video places too much emphasis on presentation rather than the model itself, so photos should be enough.

You should read earlier posts in this topic. Several people have commented with such a confidence that there's 4 motors + gearbox (one for each track, one gear selector and one function driving motor) that I can only assume that they have seen the model and its parts list.

While on the topic of hovercrafts, here's my TC20-entry, along with the original and 42120:

I'm also in favor of having a jury pre-selection and then popular vote to determine the winner. Though, with the sheer quality and breadth like the entrants on TC20, I wouldn't envy the jurors, who would have to select out extremely well made entries... Also, somewhat extended jury would distribute the pressure of selection over more people, so that would be nice too, assuming suitable people can be found.

I see no need for the possibility to configure the controls using just the remote. I think it's perfectly acceptable that you must make the control profile with a smart device, but after configuration it needs to be possible to have the program loaded into the hub so that you can disconnect the smart device and just use the controller to do whatever you want to do. Of course MOC makers who give away/sell instructions could provide the controller program along with the building instructions and so on.

This so much. Winning would be nice, but making it the main priority takes the fun out and leaves just a sour taste.