Mikdun

I voted for #2 and #3, but as you asked here are my personal reasons. I stared to engage with binding blocks by the mid '80s (yeah, I'm that old). By then only Lego has quality products. I came across some other brands (both clone and just similar) and the feeling was almost universally the same - it's worthless. They did not have good quality. Fast forward to the mid 2010 and I'm back again. But now there are few more brands (including my local Cobi) that makes good enough quality parts. After few more ears the clone brands are basically out of market. Now we have few comparable products on the market. Still Lego is for me the highest quality (judging by parts+model+instructions). Currently Lego is cutting corners on all fronts. There are no B-models, the design is sometimes lacking (hence many threads with improvements) the prices are high and there are too many branded products. So I have very similar position as @Blakbird: I've changed from Lego purist to being interested into other brands. I do not want full integration, but proper tagging should be mandatory. On the subject of MOCs: if one uses parts that exists in Lego, it does not matter where physical parts comes from. On another note: this is quite active, but respectful discussion.

Thanks for your response. Nice marketing stuff, but in a nutshell you were not able to fully cut it off. For me it's a red light for now (let see how it turns out in real life), I do not want to disconnect my model to be sure it will not fall off my shelf. ;-) I was reading your site and noticed that the current draw of PF motors are much different than what @Philo measured, did you run your tests or this is taken from somewhere else?

I'm always happy to see some new concepts that improves the building possibilities, so I'm happy that Conceptbricks created something. As I can only say anything about it from the pictures and descriptions, here are my two cents: A. The form factor is slightly odd, for me too large, I would prefer to have half the length. But I can see that for some models it can be great as is. B. The connections are making some mess. The cable increases the height to two studs, if you wish to connect two modules you end up with much more cables. You cannot stack two modules flush, you must use cables. Looking forward to see the real life reviews by the forum members. Why have you design this? What's the point?

Hope that all your work with Lego ends up with the app beeing avialable for long time.

That's so funny! But also innovative and real-life like. Pull back motor put to good use!

This discussion is really enlightening! I only wish LEGO posted such information (assuming it's the real reason - which it seems to be), I was very surprised to read about store closing in selected countries.

I'll second that!

Chcecked it now and the B-model instuctions are still there.

I'm a bit late to the party, but... Holy cow, that's great! (no pun intended) And it just floats above the grass. Really love it! Great job @Attika

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but what they care is only profit. ;-) As long as people buys bucket with flashes (those thin plastic skin that are leaking during injection) it will not be corrected. Having injection point on the side means cheaper mould. It may be only €1000 per cavity, but it is still money you have to spent. With small elements the number of cavities is high, so the purchasing guy sees €16k saving on tooling and it is very temping. Same goes for the process - as long as the machine is working "good enough" it will be working. Quality is costly, almost every manufacturer produces parts as bad as possible. But the "possible" level is totally different when you look at the candles that are meant to last week on the cemetery and swiss watches that will be in the spotlight. Again, sorry for ruining it. Not all is simulated. And even the best simulation is only as good as the mathematical model. That's why there are trials and corrections. The bottom line si: we should complain about injection points being visible. LEGO hopefully will make new moulds with better injection system/location. And the rest of your discussion is very true.

Great and (kinda) unexpected build! This model reminds me of the first Technic sets, where it was about HOW stuff works, not how it LOOKS.

That's a great adventure, even if failed. I also had to read it few times to partially understand how it works. You can be proud of making this mix of factory, Lego and DIY stuff.

Yeah, the rear fenders and the whole section looks great.

Great! At first I thought that there are real tubes...

I know it's based on 8043 but personally the look and colour skin reminds me of 42053 - Volvo EW160E

Same as above plus: the "Theme" switch on the bottom does nothing. I can choose one of the 4 available, but the look does not change. EDIT: ok, the picture on the top changes and some items fall apart, not sure what IS supposed to change. :-D

Nice builds! This could be included in the Technics Advent Calendar (if there will be any )

Use more force. Maybe old design is easier to open the new ones, but there is no other way. Here is a tool for small one: Turntable dissasembly tool, use similar concept for the large ones.

I came across the same problem when building large excavator. Ended up opening the turntable, cleaning any plastic powder from inside and used Molykote 33 grease for plastic. Works fantastic, but it's only few months.

As I remember the 2.4GHz is allowed for open use, provided low power of transmitters (10mW).

It gets better with every iteration!

To fix it you have to separate the turntable parts, clean it (there will be lot's of white powder) and (for best results) grease it. Use plastic friendly grease of course.

You are wrong. The difference is minimal, usually not measurable. The additive that gives colour to the plastic resin is only 2-3 % of the volume.

When I opened my old pump the rubber gasket on the piston was split in half. Ended up buying new "compatible" pump, I didn't want to risk buying another old one.

I'm for the animal contest.