PlopiNinetySix

Each to his own; I watch RacingBrick too, excellent reviews and the building section is absolutely awesome, I genuinely never skip it^

Sariel's review of this set has been hard, but justifiably so, I think...? [Some part of me stills think that this set is good, maybe without the stickers it'd look better as a generic Pull-Back car (non-licensed ftw) than a half-baked attempt of the real thing in this scale (like many of the smaller licensed sets)]. So it's not entirely my thing, but it'd look cool next to the other NEOM Pull back set (Note: It's 42169. Insert the funny here).

Trigonometry is one of my favorite math subjects XD That's actually a really interesting way of perspective^ Right, while Lego also makes mistakes they have the licnese of the brand, tho that's unlikely of them to design inaccurate designs (although sometimes details are missing, both MOCs and TLG are prone to this).

Bring it on... MORE!! :3

Nice comparison :P Btw, I feel like I've been living under a rock... never knew about Nkubate's MOCs; the Predator is a real beauty. *Right, many MOCs tend to build freer and somewhat floppier designs since they're not sets. This doesn't apply to all MOCs, but I did see some.

That's wholesome :D Congrats @kbalage!!!

By reading this I just realized Lego had never thought of doing more than just supercars in the 1:8 line. Getting something motorized like a RAM as you mentioned [or another pickup truck] would be probably THE flagship set (it could also have a gearbox that has an actual effect on the function-ness of the set as compared to the cars where the gearboxes just sat there)

I see, good points here^

This seems like a fun thread. As I added in the Interests section of my profile, lemme add mine! I'm a fan of of several cartoons. Most of them I'm not an active fan of, but I am of those I described as an essay :))) 1. The Fairly Oddparents until Channel Chasers~ roughly. Despite being a bit overrated, I still really like the show. 2. TUFF Puppy- Revived my nostalgia by rediscovering it after some time. Underratedly a great show, and a very underappreciated one as well. Big fan (my pfp is Agent Katswell from the show). Also I wanna try artistry of it in the future. ;D Besides that I hope for a continuation of TUFFP. 🐕🐈 (Kudley forever! :D) As for MOC-building, I plan building the TUFFmobile from the show sometime, its design is awesome and try to make it transformable (it had quite some different vehicles modes). 3. Avatar: TLA- Pretty self-explanatory I think. Legendary. 4. Ninjago until Skybound- Just like ATLA, no words needed to explain. Nostalgia too. 5. I also like TMNT 2012. 6. Danny Phantom too. I remember it, but I didn't watch it. Great show. 7. The cherry of the top of the cake- I'm a massive Transformers fan (also mentioned in my profile), especially of the live action franchise (Bayverse, Knightverse and ROTB), but also G1 and TFP. In YouTube I commented literally everywhere, both in Lego Transformers and in general TF stuff- reviews, news, that for the most part. I had this kinda reputation. It was fun and I want those times to be back cuz I'm currently not on YouTube (disconnected from the Lego Transformers community, which by itself is a tiny community, I really wanma go back :P) As for MOCs, my entire YouTube channel was them... I still have most of the photos and some videos. I ran the channel for 3 years, from February 2020 and it was my Lego Transformers MOCs.

The Blue Pins of Doom strike again. Save yourselves. Sariel's humor is amazing >D This set urgently needs some wheel mod too.

Someone from above prolly listened! For me, this is a Hanukkah miracle You could also get a ton of these, stack them on the longer axles and possibly build a custom linear actuator.

We got a video from the prophet :P

Yup, similarly to almost everything that goes on in life, no MOC can achieve 100% of the 4th category, but I have many that are, imo, are really close to that. Btw I really like the way you categorized the sets! :P And on the defense of Lego, you're right- I'm a massive fan of what CaDA is doing and its collabs with talented MOC designers bringing us remarkable sets, but still, don't like everything CaDA releases or their sometimes problematic QC, or their lack of color-coding (I actually like the "color-splash" Lego is using. At first I despised it, but I grew on me now since I see how important is that when building certain sections correctly in a set) in sets that almost achieve perfection like in Bruno's Italian supercar set (other than that, barely no complaints about the set, and nothing against Bruno of course, quite a legend); which I think, after this discussion, can actually be compared to the 1:8 supercar line, since there are similarities and differences and both CaDA's and Lego's are unique in their own ways.

I see. All in all MOCs should be reviewrd as sets are. They're MOCs, but after all there's always constructive criticism that each one has to improve it. True. I was part of this 'worship' as well. Admittedly, I was personally obssessed watching tons of MOCs on YT (that's what got me into Technic, the MOC boom, as Lipko mentioned earlier^) n the early 2010's when I still didn't know how everything was working. It seemed 'awesome' 'amazimg' 'great' and so on. It still does, but today I know how to look both on the right side and wrong side of a lot of MOCs, both being general criticism. I'm no expert, but I would give more honest feedback nowadays than I would a few years ago, for example. If people want to improve they gotta have some feedback (that includes me although I'm not on YT currently. I built Lego Transformers, a tiny Lego community that is found almost always on Instagram & YouTube, and some good YouTube friends of mine did give me criticism, which I gladly recieved. When I started the channel I didn't really get a lot of criticism on my designs, because most people seemed to like them, although I knew that every build I made have its goods and bads. Unrelatedly I also tried opening a Technic theme for the channel to showcase some of my MOCs; it didn't work because my subscribers weren't really fond of the sudden change). Interesting^. I gotta say, I never had most of these thoughts in mind till this topic. I always thought MOCs are superior to most Technic sets in almost everything they achieve, but I see in reality it's different (and depends on the builder and their design, really). Despite having described my question a bit ambiguous, in the end I'm happy of the discussion here. :D

Hot (?) take here but umm.... I think Lego could design the header differently without the new 69762 gears and could maybe have the toggle part (this little frame housing of 2-3 gears) that rotates either output in a different direction, it could maybe be impleneted in the header, then cover it with some yellow panels (or actually, recolor it yellowly, that'd be cool) and make the blades of the header horizontially to either side so that they actually move in a fixed way as the small black pieces roll (whey couldn't they attach the driveshaft to the header tho... no idea). I know that this discussion is deemed too long already but seeing the previous comments, I want to suggest such idea up for modifying this set. Despite its small scale it does have a good potential for modding and improvements Actually that's problematic seeing it now, I think that in these forage harvesters only those front gears rotate and not the actual blade... Maybe my idea could fit a combine harvester more, I'm no expert on agricultural machinery :p

I've actually never knew about MOCs that were designed by their creators only to be a show-off 1 time model sort of thing. If that's the case with most MOCs then... I think it's.. weird? Cuz I've seen a lot of MOCs on Rebrickable w/ instructions where people in the comments were very happy with the build and barely any complaints. But that's something to look at... ^ I don't really watch MOC reviews (except sometimes on Rebrickable), but I think RacingBrick's CaDA set reviews, which are originally MOC designs, are pretty honest.

I think it varies specifically on one's own opinion though. For example I can see a MOC designed nicely, and a Lego set similar to it maybe could've outperformed it in some points here and there, so the two are somewhat comparable if they have a similar design base (I think- like a car you have a chassis, suspension, and then engine and sometimes transmission too, this appears on both MOCs and Lego sets); others would say otherwise. 1. I think it's about different preferences. Still, I respect your view here. 2. True, but maybe TLG should use retired parts that might be useful for some sets here and there, sets that have designs that fit the usage of those pieces. 3. I see, but doesn't it differ from set to set? Some sets have less prototypes than others; I'm not aware how many changes Technic sets go through, perhaps I should in more insight into it^ 4. Completely understood, plus Lego has its safety standards for electric components and similar stuff like using clutch gears in many gearboxes (wellp on the other side of the coin, we sometimes get unreasonably/overwhelming high prices for those +18 sets which contain little to no electronics at all), so you're right^ 5. True; and Lego should really push its sets to the limit if they contain new parts or motorized.

Very nice set indeed ;P There is also a studless version someone made I some time ago, and it improves the looks of the original set by miles ahead. Edit: It was made by M1longer

Operating all functions with a single hand... while swooshing!!! at full speed. That's my piece of cake. The space series can only get better now. Looking forward to seeing motorized sets [although I doubt that, it's a nice opportunity

Oh nice^

Question though, was this color (dark orange) used in other (both Technic and other themes) sets before? I've personally never seen it. Regardless, this is a fantastic color combination for a fantastic theme.

42181's is currently my favorite space set... HYPE!! :D

My definition is somewhat in the lines of these: >1. Functionality at top. That includes creativeness, interesting mechanisms, creating rewarding playing experience for those who also wanna build that specific MOC/be inspired by it to build their own. >2. Looks. A MOC can be any vehicle or machine [or robot, and etc], but it should look good too, without compromising the functionality. Like I wouldn't have a problem seeing a supercar model that has all the needed functionality but has some small gaps here and there, that's not really something that annoys me personally (but if it's like a huge gap in a car shell like we've seen in 42125 (I keep bashing this set too much...?) then I can't really forgive it) because after all, it's Lego and MOCs are the closet thing to the IRL one. >3. Stability and sturdiness. A MOC should be stable at most points. This varies from builder to builder and from design to design (and in general is a pretty standard point for most MOC vehicles out there), but I always like a vehicle that's you can handle (with no worries about panels or specific sections being too loose or fiddly) carefully, not one that'll break if you would pick it from its roof (I don't really expect one to lift a helicopter from the rotors, but to be able to lift it from the undercarriage without somep parts falling off). What makes a MOC better than some official sets? Well, most MOCs have most, if not all points I've stated here, that many builders look after; since they're pretty common^. Also, MOCs are more carefully designed than sets, at least in the more recent years of Technic. They have pieces from a collection that's ot limited to designing only one set, but either from their personal collection of many (mostly dissambled) sets, bought and collected, or digitally (like LDD or Stud.io where the options are near-endless). On the other hand, I get that Lego is somewhat more restricted in part usage and colors, so this might be a bit of a stretch. Most MOCs also have a variety of functions while still managing to look good. I dunno but I think MOCs are personal creatives and therefore don't require a specific medium for designing them, building a MOC has many possibilities compared to a set- you could design some prototype, then if you're not pleased with it, you could design another version of it, and so on; while a Lego set has particularly only one version [until it's retired and then it can be rereleased with some minor or sometimes major changes] all the way from the final design to the review on YouTube, R-able, EB, and etc. In the Technic line, sometimes sets are better (to an amazing degree of functionality, looks, quality, and overall design) designed, both realistically and funtionally, but they still have their restrictions that prevent them from being MOC-like standard sets. 9398 for example is really awesome as a set (it also looks badass, be it stickers on none, it's realistic great) and performs well as an off-roader, but of course there are MOCs out there that can topple it- mostly by performance of the functionality like better off-roading capabilities and better torque. I wholeheartedly agree. Btw, 42128 is fantastic and to me really is the worthy successor to the 8285. And about the licensing, Lego could've made many licensed Technic sets wayyy more functional and overall better, if it hadn't for the specific license that requires very speific looks, almost always being prioritized over actual functionality.

I understand the confusion, should've made it clearer.It's a question of thought (I overcomplicated it tbh), basically... which Technic sets are the closet to what a MOC would be; from one's point of view, or how MOC-like they feel. From my point of view, it'd go to what I listed in the beginning of this topic, for example 42145 is to me, imho, very very similar to what a helicopter MOC could've been designed by some builders out there. -It does make a lot of sense when you think about it that way; there are dozens of MOCs that could easily be regarded as sets.

Yep I strongly think that if this set was a generic harvester and not a specifically-licensed one, then it would be miles better than we got.