PG52

That one is really inspiring. Very nice MOC !

Even for GBCs, gondolas and chairlifts or any such thing, debugging requires looking carefully at the build while controlling speed in a precise manner... The train controller is unbeatable in doing that imho. I absolutely agree with the statement that we need ways to control things (remotely or not) without ever having to look at the remote, and in a way that we can feel the controller. Buttons, levers, rotary controllers are great, touchscreen is garbage for that. When it comes to "programming" things, doing it on a phone screen is okay (computer is better imho, much more versatile and easier to code directly for complex behaviours...). But tactile controlling isn't.

So you need a specific battery box to do something that all PF battery boxes did. Nice improvement I guess ? Also, 35€ for a battery box, what the hell ? 5x4x3 is not something I call "small", it has the same volume as the PF-M ("medium") motor and, sir, 50€ for ONE motor, again, what the hell ? I know 88010, but it's not a remote with levers : I had one in hand, to control a vehicle it's really worse than the PF remote. Also, you can't change channels... That's a downgrade compared to the standard PF one imho. Being able to rotate the controls is a nice improvement though ! Initially I bought a LEGO Technic set. And although I knew it COULD be controlled via smartphone, I didn't imagine it would REQUIRE it... I was wrong. I guess I wasn't ready for that... I built it, tried the playability, as I expected it was absolutely awful with the tactile screen. Well, it went for parts immediately. Oh you're right, I forgot about those. Not the Technic series though. I was in my studies at the time and didn't really follow what was happening. Slow, impractical, requires using batteries... Can't compare that to simply turning the controller wheel... What is BLE ? Sorry I don't know this abreviation. I guess it's "Bluetooth" ? That's right, fair point. I learnt gears and technic with 8275, 8421 and 8285 back in the days... They were the flagships, but by today's standards they would be considered medium sets I guess. Well, my point is not to say that you can't do things with PU. I know you can do much more than with standard PF. But from a UX perspective, simplicity of use, requiring specific LEGO or 3-party devices, it's not nearly as good as PF was, nor is it physically compatible with older but great devices : train controller, Li-Po battery, 9V motors such as the RC one... It is great for specific complex applications but fails at doing basic tasks well imho.

Is there a proper remote control, with levers, which I don't know about ? If there is, I apologize. I bought the 8275 back in 2007. Although it was a remote controlled set, I was able to get a motor running instantly by simply plugging it on the battery box and sliding a switch. I bought the 42100 a few years ago. If there is a way to get a motor running instantly, well, I'm dumb, I didn't find it. It was said to be a replacement for the PF system, well, if it can't do the most basic thing the PF system could always do... Most of mine aren't : I'm mostly known for ropeways and GBC modules... Also, mains current is great for testing purposes as well as being vastly better for the environment than batteries. Also, at events we tend to use mains current anyways even for mobile devices, as it's so much more practical and stable... As I said, I have a 42100, there's no city hub in there, nor is there a remote. It's the first system in LEGO history, outside the Mindstorms series which was specifically branded as "advanced computer and programming stuff", that doesn't allow this basic task. Is there ? I didn't find anything smaller than a M-motor, which is still quite big imho. What I call "small" is something like 3x3x3 studs. Indeed, which means you can't put them wherever you want in a MOC. It's a huge block that you can't hide in small-sized or complex builds... City hub has only two ports, that's ridiculous for advanced MOCs. Think about it : you could get 8 motors on a single 8x4 lithium battery using 4 small-sized receivers that you could fit anywhere you wanted and provided you with added wire length. Now you're stuck with two huge boxes or four 8x4 ones for the same thing, not even talking about the weight of the batteries, which you have to fit close to the position of the motors because there's no extension cable... I know. Yet it's a completely different story than just plugging in the motor on the train controller and voilà. Wanna change speed or direction on the go, which is something we ALWAYS do in GBC for testing, debugging, adjusting ? PU doesn't come close to the convenience of the rotary controller. It's true that my perception is not the same as today's children's who always lived with smartphones and such. Well, good for them ; I hate relying on those kind of devices for simple things. Will PU still work 20 or even 10 years from now ? I own a few motors from the 1980s which I still can run, remote control, use for GBCs... With no more hassle than plugging them in. And - old silly boy quote here - I learnt a lot about mechanics by having to use it. If saying "motor A speed 37" is enough, we loose a big part of what Lego Technic is... Finding mechanical solutions, adapting, learning.

Hello everyone, just a sidenote. What I personnally am looking for is a system that works in a "plug and play" fashion. Which is why I really liked PF. It only lacked a "few" things imho : - Separate motors and wires, 9V-style, with several wire lengths available ; - 2.4 GHz instead of IR for better outside transmission, better range and a way to have compatibility with standard RC remotes ; - An option to use mains power, which the old 9V train controller is still the only one to provide today almost 20 years after its replacement : useful for GBC-like applications, testing, and events when you need power for an extended period of time. - A GOOD and LEGO-made remote that allows proportionnal control. It doesn't need to be perfect or even have joysticks, just be usable (which the rotary train remote wasn't) and "lego-compatible". Maybe it could be modular ? Imagine a remote with "in-system" geometry (with technic holes) that would allow free placing of the control levers or buttons... For example, up to 8 levers connected via wires to a single "central unit" which would contain the transmitter and 3x 1.5V batteries (or a replaceable standard power bank). One could make his own controller adapted to his needs, while still keeping the "plug and play" thing. - And, why not, an option to use 3rd party batteries with standard wiring, without having to dismount things, drill, weld or whatever. Could be just a small plastic cover to remove off the battery pack, or why not a separate product that could then be a lot smaller, keeping only the control electronics and the current limiter inside...? I can't stand powered-up. Having to use a 3rd-party device to use it sucks ; not being able to connect a motor to a battery box and run it immediately sucks ; not being able to use mains power sucks ; needing to program things even for a 30-minute basic MOC sucks ; the huge size of the control hub sucks ; the lack of extension wires sucks ; the lack of a small motor sucks... I mean, imho PU is more of a Mindstorms replacement, and it may well be good at it. But it is in no way a valid replacement for what many of us - and the vast majority of children - want with lego : build, modify, create, test ideas, play... without having to go through time-consuming processes with 3-rd party elements.

Just a quick note there. I've been slowly working on a new version these last weeks, and thinking back about the V9, I discovered the simulator (impressive !!) and found 1963Maniac's mod on Rebrickable. I now understand something I didn't get back then : the gear ratio of the modded version is 12t/140t (3:35) while the gear ratio I was using is 8t-160t (1:20). I'm now sure that this is the reason why you can only get drawings with 7 petals or a multiple of 7 : the 1:20 ratio is compatible with the 1:5 ratio just before the arms (leaving 1:4, which is a dividor of 1), whilst the 3:35 leaves a 3:7 ratio behind which is not a decimal number : compensating the difference requires 7 rotations of the plate or requires the adjustment gearboxes to match this number. In my new one I'm using the banana gears, and to acheive the 1:7 ratio I made custom differentials using the 56t turntable. I'm willing to document this V11 better than the previous ones, it has some new possibilities and the drawings I'm getting look quite nice. (V10 was a semi-fail with some new ideas implemented, mainly bad ones ^^)

For fixed grip, I don't know, but you may be interested in my work on detachable gondolas : the way the grip works can be adapted for a fixed grip chairlift. https://www.youtube.com/user/pg5200/videos

Given all answers, I think the question is irrelevant in itself. Whether it's a toy or not is dependant to the use you are - or the persone you're offering it to is - doing with it, not that much the price - which is seen differently by everyone : for me $450 is a lot, for people who earn $3000 a month, it might not be. If $450 is affordable and you buy it for pleasure / collection or so, you may consider 42100 a toy. If you're a children and get 42100 as a gift, then obviously it's gonna be a toy :) If you're a MOCer and get it as a part binge, then it might not be a toy. More like something that enables you to get pleasure building / engineering something yourself, some kind of logistics supply. (I'm it this category ^^) If you're a worker at Liebherr and buy 42100 as a engineering demonstrator (which it could be, why not ?), then it's a working tool... And maybe, also, a toy for you. And I'm probably missing many situations where 42100 could be considered as a toy, or not. Soo... just my point of view :D

@AnkokuThanks for sharing it. I saw that yesterday. They're telling that they got inspired by another module on the internet, and that they didn't know mine was the original one. I asked them to give credit to me, which they did, at the bottom end of the description of the video... But not on the video itself (not sure if it's possible without re-uploading the whole video though). Well, although there is a lot of extra work in this build by adapting the module and creating the other ones + making the instructions, it feels quite weird as you say. I guess i'm gonna let things happen this time, I don't wanna overreact either, but yeah that doesn't feel right. I think there was already a discussion about this kind of "copyright" thing, I know it's also cultural, but they are dutch, I'm french, those two cultures are not that different... If I were them I would have asked the person whose video they saw - who apparently didn't give credit either - , if I could use the module and make money out of it... That would feel better to me.

Thanks for doing that, it's nice of you. I tried Studio, found some similarities with LDD, the soft seems well done. However it's quite difficult to work with it using my 15' laptop... Studio is definitely not designed for small screens ^^ While modelling, you might have some trouble with the bracings, as triangles are not exact (not far from exact though). Apart from this, it should be straightforward.

@Ankoku The folder is now public : http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=576510

Lovin' it for the same reasons as XGBC :)

@Ankoku About my module "the sun" : I'm glad you like it. It was already quite reliable in the video, and with a simple fix it gets pretty much 100% reliable in perfect conditions (it has no rigid chassis, so it requires the table it's sitting on to be level and stable). It ran during to exhibitions (about 30 hours) without dropping a ball, but on its own and on a very stable table each time. I uploaded some pictures on my Brickshelf gallery : http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=576510 (not yet public though now public :) ) The module needs to be adapted to be operated in a module chain, especially the feeder at the bottom which currently requires to be constantly fed by balls, otherwise there is a risk of a ball getting stuck between the fixed ramp and the mobile feeder... But with 28-30 balls in a loop, that problem never appears and the module works flawlessly. I guess replacing it by a classic 3-balls-wide feeder would work well, I might do so at some point. Here is the fix (the two black beams sticking out), to prevent the buckets to jump over the upper ramp and get the module stuck. The problem appeared on an uneven table, because the support beam for the upper ramp is not rigid and allowed the ramp to bend towards the rotating wheel. The problem can be solved by making that support more rigid. I would suggest transparent beams to keep the aesthetics, but I don't have any so I left it like so. I didn't make a CAD file as there was no demand and I think it still needs improvement, but feel free to do so and modify it if you want to :) P.S. My previous module "connecting rods" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvXC_VehBKk&ab_channel=pg5200) used the same principle with 3 balls per bucket, it was not 100% reliable but was made to be used in a module chain. The problem came from the feeder, I think it had to do with the vibrations of the whole thing but I couldn't find how the ball was getting out of its ramp. I tred to film it and obviously, it didn't happen during the footage...

Well, I'm happy to hear that ! I think mine ran during 2 or 3 exhibitions without any problem. There are so many gears though that moving parts might get harmed on the long run... At least I tried to keep the stress and strain as low as possible in the drivetrain.

Thanks everyone for your comments ! Glad you like my little tractor Yeah, sadly the hoist has to be this massive : I first wanted to use a worm gear like on #8284, but it didn't look great at all... I agree with you, small cylinders would be nice for many features that only need a small stroke. Actually, I could have used small pneumatic cylinders, which would fit quite well in terms of length, but they are yellow and I would need to add a pump somewhere ^^ I was told on french forum Techlug that the roof and the front didn't look so great, and that were the parts I liked the least on this MOC. So I decided to go for a V2, and this time, I managed to fit a HOG in ! The axle of the HOG is connected to a triplet of 12t gears, just above the differential, which drive a 8t-rack on each side just as it works for the steering wheel. I used the old 10t racks : it may be possible to only use parts that are still produced today, and I'll probably try to improve this point in the near future as this MOC has been really pleasant to develop till then :) The rear axle is narrower in order to better fit the scale. I also had to add one more stud between front and rear axles, otherwise the hood looked quite odd (I'm not building a Cyrano Dutra, or even odder - but really nice-looking to my mind -, a Bisomtrac ^^). I also added some details : working lights and mirrors. Those inverted slopes are really practical for this application ! Some pictures : Cabin, with new seat and dashboard, flat roof, working lights, mirrors... : The front end is more agressive than before. Notice that the cabin is now narrower at the top (10t) than at its base (11t) : I used frictionless pins to make the angle of the thin cab pillars, but the main chassis is rigid and geometrically correct. Open hood : Another try with a black hood : The chassis is much cleaner and more compact. Here is the underside view : I had to replace the 24t-8t for the fake engine by a 20t-12t to keep the chassis solid and rigid. Great weather is announced for this week-end, I'm gonna be able to make a little video :) Hope you enjoyed this second version !