howitzer

You could put a bush in there though. No need to use a gear to hold the axle in place.

I don't think it's possible, as the rudder probably can't compensate the sideways pull if one proptor is not powered. Normal planes are aerodynamically a bit different so with them flight is usually possible even in the event of engine failure as long as at least one engine is working. Check post by steph77 a bit earlier, you'll find more in-depth information there on how the Osprey flies.

Yes, there is a gearbox which enables one engine to power both proptors in case the other engine fails.

I had a similar problem with another set a while ago, it had an instructions booklet that had some pages misaligned in the printing process so part of the pages were cut off and on the other end there were rough edges of the cutoff-portion of the original sheets. I contacted customer support about this (using the missing piece form) and they sent replacement manual with no problem. So go ahead and contact them and you'll get a new manual to replace your obviously defective one.

This exactly. I've seen many kinds of reviews, but never does a reviewer prioritize all aspects of the set like I do (and how could they), so the simple yet informative descriptions of the functions in Technicopedia feel like they give me honest information about the sets so I can make my own decision on how I like them. Something I also appreciate very much is the minimalistic style of the site: no fancy graphics or gimmicks, but just text laid in easy to read format with descriptive photos. The site loads very fast and is easy to read, something that can't be said for vast majority of modern websites.

It might not be an issue of space exactly... the hub has to be accessible for easy removal to change batteries so that limits options on where to put it. Behind the cabin is also a traditional place for battery boxes in trucks and such. Under the hood would be another place with plenty of space though, unless there's a fake engine in there or there's some other limiting factor, like cable length.

What about... driving in straight line?

I agree with previous comments, Technicopedia almost irreplaceable resource for encyclopedic and historical information, and as such it's unique, as there doesn't seem to be any other site with in-depth information about Technic sets. Any kind of update, no matter how small, is greatly appreciated.

Something that would probably help a lot here would be separating the power source from the other electronics. Batteries are the biggest space hog in the hub, so if there was a controller with all the other circuitry+ports and it connected to the power source with a simple cable, one could envision traditional battery boxes, rechargeable batteries and even a transformer for wall socket, all of which could be located somewhere else than the controller hub. The controller hub could also be hidden inside the structure with a "button extension" to turn it on, as it wouldn't have to be accessible for battery changes like the current hub. Maybe there could even be a simple port attachment that would in essence make the battery box a dumb motor controller like the PF battery box is.

I wonder if the drum is open from both ends, so that the balls might fit through? It would make a nice GBC part that way.

I always felt that RTC had over 4000 pieces only for the sake of having over 4000 pieces, as there were quite a bit of parts that were not exactly necessary (those hubcaps...), but marketing department surely likes to present the largest set ever to the public. Liebherr upped again the part count, but for some reason it didn't feel like having excess parts, maybe because details from the real vehicle had to be replicated? BWE, which was the previous record-holder, also felt like every part having a purpose other than inflating parts count, even the dump truck and "rock"-pieces added value to the set. But it's good to see that this year they didn't make sets big just for the sake of it.

Yeah, it seems logical to have shareable control profiles, no reason not to implement that kind of functionality. Many people seem to think that PU is a finished product with no more major features in development, while I think it's obvious that it's a work in progress, and it's only a matter of time when we'll see the things people have been asking. While PU is currently lacking many useful features, I'm sure in a couple of years it'll be much more useful system for all MOCers.

Yes it was. There were back-of-the-box alternative builds at least in some Classic Space sets, but no instructions, just a photo of the complete build. I personally don't care much for the B-models... while I have always built them when available, they somehow every time seem to fall short of my expectations so I'm not really mourning for their loss.

I think Creator 3-in-1 is a bit different, because those sets are specifically designed with three models in mind, so they are more like the universal sets of the old times and less like normal sets with B-models. It's quite a different task to design a model with other goals in mind, and then design another model from the first model's parts, than to design a set of more or less equal models using the same set of parts. But yeah, B-models and idea books seem to be a thing of the past, considering you can now find tons of great alternative models and MOCs online.

I wonder if there will be an option to and share your programmed control profiles easily online for others to download? It could be one way to implement easy-to-use custom controls for those who don't want to code, while enabling complex functions. Vehicle operation aside, I believe GBC community would appreciate such an option, to create novel programmed modules with shareable building instructions and control profiles. Of course you can share the instructions to make the code but sharing them online would be much easier for everyone involved.

New PU hubs go for like 20€ and motors for like 10€ in Bricklink, so I wonder who TLG is kidding with those prices...

Thanks for the great review! Your comments on the target audience sums up my thoughts on the matter as well.

Very nice! A suggestion for future development: hide the bottom mechanism behind paneling and make it operable with one hand, maybe also with less reduction so it responds faster.

I had this colour shading inconsistency with 42082, the red 3L axle-pins came in two different shades of red. Of course there it wasn't a problem at all, because the pins were mostly not visible. If the inconsistency in Sariel's review is anywhere near as bad in real life as it appears in the video, it's a huge problem. For this price customers are entitled to have much better quality.

Yes, I even mentioned Model Team somewhere. I talked about Creator expert just because it seemed closest thing from today's from the product lines and there have been many Creator expert vehicles which aim for realistic looks of real cars. Now, just add internal mechanics like suspension and transmission, and you have what I was looking for. Doesn't of course have to be branded as Creator expert.

Are you saying such a model can't be built? No, TLG hasn't produced such a set, but I'm not seeing why it couldn't be made if they so chose. This is the first argument that actually has a point, but I believe the right combination of Technic and System pieces would accomplish better styling while not being too heavy. I'm not saying you can't use Technic panels, but why limit the construction to them? Of course new, stiffer springs for a suspension that can handle the weight can also be made (and have been, but they are rare and expensive in the second hand market, so a new such a spring would be very welcome too).

I bought RTC for 214€ but I've seen it for 180€ or even less, so you can almost get 2 RTC's for the price of the Sian, and Liebherr is also in the same price range. I also find it hard to justify the price of the UCS cars, considering that while RTC didn't include any new parts, for the low price it is really great parts pack and it's also a complex, very playable set with a motor too. Makes a very nice display piece too if you're into heavy machinery. Liebherr on the other hand took remote control to a whole new level and included _a lot_ of electronics, while also bringing other new and very useful parts like the linear clutch and longer LA's. So what's one paying for in Sian? Pretty box, couple of new parts and old parts in new colours and a nice license. And a very nice display set, if you're into supercars. I'm not saying it's a bad set, but it feels way overpriced.

Umm, Bugatti does have quite a bit more advanced gearbox though, with new parts and all, even stepping up from the Porsche. Also one significant feature of 8448 was the hugely variable bodywork, something which obviously cannot be done with real cars such as the Bugatti so both sets have something that the other doesn't. Sian on the other hand appears to be technically almost the same as the Bugatti, with just some of its problems fixed. My point here is that the bodywork could be replicated much better in combination of System and Technic parts and as no technical innovation seems possible anymore (prove me wrong, please), I don't see the why they insist that UCS cars must be Technic and not either Creator expert or maybe line of their own or maybe it's time to revive Model Team? I get that they have collectible value to some people and I don't want to take that away, but as it is, UCS cars seem to go against the core philosophy of the Technic theme. Of course this all ties with the more general development of the Technic line, as many of the types of the machinery represented are functionally essentially identical, so it's hard to innovate. I mean, crane lifts stuff and loader loads stuff and excavator excavates, what else is there to do? The Liebherr brought us new remote control and electronics, Osprey and BWE are probably attempts to bring something new types of machines in the line, but while the BWE was a great set, I don't see another similar machine popping up anytime soon. Maybe they could start a line of kinetic sculptures or something? But this discussion is getting really off-topic, and should probably continue elsewhere.

It's probably similar but slightly less in rigidity than the old 5x7 frames simply because it's larger. But it should still be much more rigid than anything reasonable that you can build with just simple beams and connectors. Not that the rigidity is essential here, it's just convenient.

Not an error, perfectly intentional. The springs don't pivot (at least not much) around the blue pins and friction pins reduce slack compared to frictionless.