Stereo

The light grey wedges appear to be a quarter of the roof from this Hagrid's Hut https://rebrickable.com/sets/4738-1/hagrids-hut/ The bottom left seems to be the center gun of https://rebrickable.com/sets/7959-1/geonosian-starfighter/, maybe also the 3x12 dark bluish grey wedges. The second picture's the front skids of this https://rebrickable.com/sets/7748-1/corporate-alliance-tank-droid/ https://rebrickable.com/parts/2626/wedge-sloped-inverted-6-x-6-x-1-boat-bow/0/ The boat pieces are rare to have 4x black, they don't look to be built as either of the sets but maybe you can figure out which is more likely the source. I'd guess set 5956.

It sort of goes with having every set be the "hero" vehicles, and following visual media for merchandising, I guess. Classic Space had few or no named characters, so when you have a military organization, they just have one colour scheme across the board. The Dreamzzz villains ended up with better colour coherence cause mostly it's just "dreamlings", not specific bad guys.

That makes it a pretty small set, in comparison 42144 Material Handler is $150, 1400g, 835 pieces. 42173 Koenigsegg Jesko is $50, 995g, 801 pieces. Maybe it has a single pneumatic function making the price higher but not to the extent of the Material Handler? Or they realized the Handler was overpriced by at least $50 and reined it in a bit.

It looks to me like the balljoint just holds the steering column at an angle, I expect it uses knob gears closer to the front of the kart to actually steer.

There's an earlier version of the switch that isn't glued, it's just clipped shut, you can see the clips at the top & bottom of it plus the two parts are relatively loose. I've had a couple of those that only hold about 7 psi unless you press the back cover into place, and even then it's less than the glued ones. Maybe 15 psi, vs. the glued ones holding up to about 20-25 before they leak. You might want to lever switches back and forth 10-20 times to make sure the internal rubber/lubricant is softened up and able to seal.

The yellow cab looks like it has dark bluish gray cylinders, which I don't think match the era the hinged roof pieces were used. 1589/1590 do seem to have the yellow parts needed to build that, though more likely it's from a mix of sets.

Is that piece a real axle in the middle? It'd really narrow things up if you had 92906 out of the diff, cut in half the 5L (2405), so it could slide into 32494 in the hub. Roughly 11 studs in between the hubs. Too bad they didn't make it as 2 pieces that joined with an axle joiner.

It matches the previous toothed-bushing connectors https://rebrickable.com/parts/4273b/technic-axle-and-pin-connector-toggle-joint-toothed-with-slots/ which have 16 teeth so divide 360 into 16. I guess being conservative/backwards compatible they didn't want to change that system. Same for the small click-joints that came later, it steps evenly by 22.5. I think the larger style joints have 24 teeth and so they step by 15 degrees instead.

That assumes it's uses bricks that are blue, not dark azure. I hope it's plain blue as well but we will see.

Aside from the 3 mentioned parts, there's a non-obvious piece that uses the same 3-4-5 pythagorean triple: https://rebrickable.com/parts/32333/technic-pin-connector-block-1-x-5-x-3/ The top and angled rows of studs are the same angle as these bent beams.

Assuming it's an even 60 degrees, it's more geometrically like 10288 and 57585. I wonder if there's an upcoming set with a triangular truss that benefits from it...

That's interesting cause I ran into the opposite problem - I pasted an url, then decided to change it, but because there's no bbcode, I couldn't change the address it goes to, only the label. So I had to delete it all and paste it again. Otherwise it was linking to the wrong page, but still looked like it was showing the address it'd go to - https://www.google.com for example. It's also given me problems when quoting people, where I'll accidentally delete the newline after the quote while trimming its contents, and end up entirely unable to move the cursor outside the quote. Direct code editing is much more comfortable for me than WYSIWG where sometimes there's no way to get what I want.

I suppose functional reasons too, the official 9V-PF adapter can't attach to the new power pickup bogie design, cause the plug has PF on the top of it. So right now you need a 9V plate or wire, then the PF adapter wire, then the PF device's own wire. A wire with pure 9V on one end and pure PF/PU on the other would eliminate a step. Or maybe it's not too late to change the bogie plate design to have a PF-shaped hole in the bottom? It's not like those antistuds connect to the wheelset. Single brick adapters with no wires would also cut down on how much wire needs to be tucked into the model, eg. PF on top, 9V on bottom. And then you don't need to design as many parts with the 9V studs (to my understanding, the most precise part) and can mount them directly on their modular power supply system.

I think for me it ended up being a case of liking these sets, but liking Creator 3-in-1 more... I'd say I'm mostly happy with the Dreamzzz sets I did buy, only thing I might call out is too many loose parts which is not really a big problem. But I like keeping my sets together, and having a bunch of loose minifigs, Dreamlings, and spare pieces for the alternate builds makes it a bit messy compared to like, building the A-model for a 3-in-1 set and putting it on a shelf when I'm not using it. Partly a factor of buying the smaller mech-style sets though. The bigger vehicles have more studs & compartments.

I think if they had to use the new hub then it would make for more interesting builds than other technic PU sets, cause it's limited to the 3 motor outputs so if you want to run an excavator with it, you'd probably have the servo-like front one selecting a gearbox, and the other two running various functions (probably a mode for tracked driving, then another for main arm functions, possibly a 3rd for secondary arm functions, slewing the upper structure) But it's more likely to be a one-off, and they'll make a different one-off next time a set needs to be motorized... But I've never bought a PU motorized set so I'm not the right person to say what they should do anyway. I don't like the lifespan of batteries or electronics in general.

Lots of interesting stuff, but this is the first where it feels like maybe I should have known but didn't know... I pulled out my CodePilot and RCX 1.0, and the battery covers are compatible without sharing any actual components. The CodePilot's cover has a rounded corner at one end for aesthetics, the RCX cover is symmetrical, but under the cover, the battery holders have the same rounded corner on one end. So they can each wear the other's cover. The RCX with CodePilot cover is 1/2 plate shorter than with its own one... The battery holder is nearly identical on both, green plastic and all the visible battery markings the same, but different molds to fit the different shapes of the top shells. Altogether on their own they're 10 plates (CodePilot) and 12 plates (RCX 1.0) tall. Or with swapped covers, 10.5 and 11.5. I had the CodePilot open to clean battery corrosion a while ago so I have a picture that shows the difference actually - https://imgur.com/a/YJI6hL9 I've drawn a line around the corner that's square on the RCX. (the other notes are how to separate the PCB from the backing in case I ever need to do it again, as it's friction fit under the battery contacts with little plastic posts that key it into place)

Wheels are measured without the flange, so really it's 2 plates less than 3 studs. But the flange is a lot bigger (1 plate is ~4 inches) so it does require the body to be higher to clear them. And visually they're large.

They already did that with images last fall - links expire in a few days, if you're using Discord's own website (or app) it automatically updates links in posts to point at an available version, but if you hot link it'll fail.

To me it looks like the base is unfolding a bit due to the weight, so the center axle has a bend in it and is probably not able to run smoothly, maybe you used plain 5L axles instead of ones with stops? I did have that MOC built a while ago but I already took it apart, and I had a different gear substitution (20T clutch gear instead of 16T) so I had to change that section anyway to make the ratios match. I don't know if a direct link works but this is a picture of it that I uploaded to Rebrickable back then, you can see the different gear setup I used to accomodate the 3L gear shift piece. Instead of 16:16, 20:12:20:12 as two stages, it's directly 20:12:20:12:12 Otherwise it's in the gallery, the one with a smiling brick sun https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-4477/JKBrickworks/earth-moon-and-sun-orrery/#photos

I missed the question when it got posted and I see it's had the straightforward answer, but for completeness, here are photos: The wheels in question: 2994, 42716 + a 56145 2996 fits most of the way into either, but when they're both facing "down" it fits almost flush. It's close enough that a tire mounted to the black wheel would be borderline touching a beam, if you used only the 2996 as a spacer.

I think it's more likely the parts are dirty and don't slide smoothly enough (probably the spring itself but maybe other suspension parts, along with usual caveats about not clamping moving parts too tightly between bushes). That style of spring puts a pretty big side-load on the sliders (since the top end axle hole is offset from the spring) A few years ago I rebuilt my 8448 and cleaned/dusted everything and the steering and drivetrain worked way more smoothly. I've had it on its wheels on a shelf for its entire 25+ year life and the springs haven't lost anything, just sitting shouldn't affect them. Track width also changes quite a bit on compression cause the control arms flatten out, so tire grip on the ground prevents suspension from returning smoothly. If it's that, you could try putting one side's tires on sheets of wax paper on carpet, so they can slide sideways, see if that helps.

Yeah, I would look at ratings more as approval among people who like the set, not comparable to all Technic. If you want to buy a Licensed Supercar you could look at how the Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Bugatti are rated to decide which one to get. But if you don't want to buy a Licensed Supercar it doesn't matter what the ratings are. For me, they're too big - along with all the halo motorized sets - 42110 is the largest set I've bought, and it's already so big that I don't want to take it apart and play with it. 700-1000 piece sets give me a much better value for money cause I can actually use them as Lego.

I think for most people it's not really 'number of functions' but about the mechanisms each one uses. An opening door that's just a loose panel attached with friction pins is not an interesting mechanism, it just makes the build as a whole more floppy. The 8880 rear hatch is "one mechanism" but it consists of about 9 moving parts that are all linked together. It's the same issue people have with the modern motorized sets that just run each function with its own motor, directly driving the actuators. It's still capable, but it's not as interesting a build or mechanism, when it's compared to one of the older sets like (iirc) 8043.

They don't carry batteries so they might trend to lighter tire loads, which limits tractive effort, they should have similar rubber tires on the track. Then again the rubber gets older and harder.

I don't know this era of box designs all that well, but everything except the tires looks exactly how I'd expect a new set to look. Maybe it's a regional thing if your other old sets aren't like that, mine had those same 3 types of bags (perforated with no printing, smaller clear plastic with no printing, and the ones printed with suffocation warnings that just cut off randomly where they sealed the bags) Tires it's hard to say from those photos, they have a lot of resolution but not much clarity. None of my old tires are that bad and I'd guess it's a problem with that range of years.